BREAKING: TRUMP WINS! Supreme Court Rules 6-3 on Presidential Immunity

a reply to: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: JadedGhost
I mean I guess his won as in his successfully delayed his criminal trials to the point where they’ll almost definitely not be heard before the November election, which was the whole point.

But this Ruling is hardly a win for Trump, it’s actually exactly what everyone expected… immunity for official acts… but no immunity for unofficial acts.

Are you one who kept saying it was against the law to have those docs before? I don't remember. I have only been back a few weeks on ATS after the screwup the system did to many of us old timers.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: JadedGhost

If that is the whole point then you are readily admitting to election interference......

Or Trump blatantly trying to avoid being accountable for his crimes…

The fact that it's been opined by SCOTUS today directly refutes that notion.

But do go on.....

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: JadedGhost

If that is the whole point then you are readily admitting to election interference......

Or Trump blatantly trying to avoid being accountable for his crimes…

The fact that it's been opined by SCOTUS today directly refutes that notion.

But do go on.....

I am surprised that one would be so dumb as to come in here today and try that angle.

Sooo can Obama now be charged for spying on Trump campaign? Sounds a bit watergatish if you ask me.

Can Biden be charged for giving billions to student loans since SC deemed it unlawful and he still did it

a reply to: JinMI

"...full throated support..."?


How is what I posted in any way "support", full-throated, or otherwise?


I was pointing out the potential for abuse made more possible by this ruling, and thus cautioning, due to the unintended consequences, against embracing the ruling as a "win".

originally posted by: Enduro
Sooo can Obama now be charged for spying on Trump campaign? Sounds a bit watergatish if you ask me.

Hell yes, since it WAS a real crime that is on the books. Good point!

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: JadedGhost

If that is the whole point then you are readily admitting to election interference......

Or Trump blatantly trying to avoid being accountable for his crimes…

The fact that it's been opined by SCOTUS today directly refutes that notion.

But do go on.....

I am surprised that one would be so dumb as to come in here today and try that angle.

I've long forgotten what it was like to be surprised by new lows of stupidity.

I envy you.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: JinMI

"...full throated support..."?


How is what I posted in any way "support", full-throated, or otherwise?


I was pointing out the potential for abuse made more possible by this ruling, and thus cautioning, due to the unintended consequences, against embracing the ruling as a "win".

The potential for abuse has always been there. Yet the abuse continues to this day.

Your support seemingly stems from what you think is allowable behavior for political rivals construed as enemies of the nation of which there is zero evidence for.

a reply to: bigginpc

No.


It is a caution. A warning that very often what Fate gives with one hand, it can take away with the other.

Never get so drunk on the wine of Victory that you allow your Enemies to conquer you in your Stupor.

a reply to: JinMI

Sook was one I expected that from in spades maybe one other would not appreciate being wrong and just letting a sleeping dog lay peacefully.

a reply to: Justoneman

The talking points were readily available today ......

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: IndieA

I don't see this as a win.

And he is entitled to at least presump-tive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
There is no immunity for unofficial acts

If they define his actions as non official acts. He can be tried.

In fact, if you read the full decision, the Supreme Court remanded the case back down to the district court to determine whether four different issues that the prosecution raised do or do not fall outside the definition of official acts. The case will go forward, with Judge Chutkan making some important decisions.

a reply to: Lapidoth

I don't think it has to be declared, as it already has been by Trumps side, right? That rally wasn't anything official, anything that may or may not have been planned and or done wasn't done as official work of the President. I may be remembering wrong though.

a reply to: JinMI

Well, I think they went into some good examples in the ruling along with prior court case citations. Of what is and what is not an official act. And most of that is certainly within law and the constitution.

The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”

So here is where the prosecution has to prove their case. Is trying to get the vice president to overturn the election part of a presidents official responsibility? I think that any sane American would say, No. That's not part of a presidents official duties.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: bigginpc
Power over others is weakness disguised as strength.

Are you really ready to send half the country to gulags or gas chambers?

No.


It is a caution. A warning that very often what Fate gives with one hand, it can take away with the other.

Never get so drunk on the wine of Victory that you allow your Enemies to conquer you in your Stupor.

a reply to: Boomer1947

I've skimmed some of the decision and noticed that. However I was replying to the OP in this case. Who concluded it as a win. When in fact that's SCotUS only confirmed that official duties are definitely immune. While non official actions are not immune.

The lower court has some work to do in this case that's for sure.

a reply to: Enduro

The first part? Probably? Due process and all but depends on how the defense would spin it. Did they "really" think there was Russian interference and it was a matter of national security? Just putting out arguments here.

The second part? No. My understanding of the law is it is rarely retroactive, right? So if drinking beer becomes illegal today, I can't be prosecuted on 30 counts for yesterday.

This is all a red herring anyways, since every single charge by activist democrat prosecutors and so far 99% of the partisan judges, have been political targeting of their perceived enemy and the opposing political party. The propaganda in the news that frontloads all this BS with even more falsehoods and lies describes the original falsehoods that Trump is guilty of even when no crime was committed, it is pure fabrication from the get go.

Banana republic tactics still in play.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: JinMI

Well, I think they went into some good examples in the ruling along with prior court case citations. Of what is and what is not an official act. And most of that is certainly within law and the constitution.

The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”

So here is where the prosecution has to prove their case. Is trying to get the vice president to overturn the election part of a presidents official responsibility? I think that any sane American would say, No. That's not part of a presidents official duties.

Actually, his oath includes defending the constitution of the US. So therefore, him trying to hold up certification of the election until those questions could be answered, IS defending the constitution.

So, official act.