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

a reply to: grey580

I'm aware and kudos to you for being among the few to read it.

Did you happen to also remember reading where a POTUS' motive can't be questioned along with presumption of innocence?

Because that sets a very high bar. One that not even Chutkin can lower.

a reply to: theatreboy

According to Pence, the claim that Trump only tried to "pause" certification is "completely false". You can see him say it in the video.



So is Trump asking Pence to "literally reject votes" an official act?

a reply to: JinMI

I don't think the bar is that high. Certainly in cases where they can prove that the president did something outside the scope of his duties. But it would definitely have to be something that's glaringly obvious that it's not within the scope.

a reply to: grey580

Any examples to point to?

a reply to: IndieA

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.

Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.

originally posted by: TipToeDrifter
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.

The rally wasn't illegal and I haven't I seen any evidence that anything illegal was planned by Trump or his team that day.

I've have seen some evidence that the FBI may have been up to no good though.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: JinMI

I don't think the bar is that high. Certainly in cases where they can prove that the president did something outside the scope of his duties. But it would definitely have to be something that's glaringly obvious that it's not within the scope.

From the decision….

"Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."

a reply to: JinMI

Here's a great example.

Slick Willy lying about getting a BJ in the oval office.

Can we agree that it does not fall within the scope of official duties?

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

....

No.

Obama never gave any order to spy on the Trump campaign. I assume Crossfire Hurricane is the "spying" you are referring to, since that is the only investigation that got started under his administration.

The FBI Inspector General under Trump was Michael Horowitz. He conducted an extensive investigation of Crossfire Hurricane and issued a final report in December of 2019. He found no involvement in Crossfire Hurricane by Obama or the White House and no improper political motives for starting the investigation. The only actionable irregularity he found was an email from an FBI official that had been altered to conceal the fact that Carter Page had once been a CIA informant. A few years later, Special Counsel John Durham followed up on that lead and brought an indictment against that FBI agent. The agent pleaded guilty of a misdemeanor and received probation. It's been investigated up the wazoo. The guilty party was identified, caught, and punished, and it wasn't Obama.

Can anyone provide some insight on the following scenarios…

If a president wanted to deny the election results under a false premise, could they refuse to relinquish power without fear of prosecution?

If a president wanted to target and imprison a political rival based on claimed illegality, they could also get away with under this new ruling?

a reply to: grey580

Sure. Lying under oath does not fall within the scope of official duties.

a reply to: IndieA

I'm not here to speak to or argue hardcore facts about what happened then, rather offering my memory of what was said and how it relates to possible illegal things.

No one said the rally was illegal.

There is possible evidence of Trump/his team being possibly involved with people who have already been convicted of crimes from that day. From my memory at least, I'm aware of all the misinfo but I'm working official narrative here.

I'm simply responding to Lapidoth's comment that "It seems like all they need to do then, is to declare Trump’s actions regarding Jan. 6 as unofficial acts. I’m not sure this is a slam dunk win for Trump, maybe I’m missing something?"

If all things above are true, which is just what we are working with now considering the ON, nobody has to declare anything that happened on January 6th in regards to the rally and breaching of the capital, were done inside of regular Presidential duties. It has already been stated by those involved. Political rallies aren't presidential duties, any coms anyone may have had aren't either.

I'm making no statement on truth of the day or anything like that, just going off the reality we find ourselves in.

originally posted by: IndieA
Well here you have it.

BREAKING: TRUMP WINS! Supreme Court Rules 6-3 on Presidential Immunity – “Court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers”

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.

Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.

The Supreme Court ruled there is no immunity for unofficial acts. Jack Smith’s DC case against Trump will be delayed again as it bounces back down to the lower court.

THE COURT RULES FOR TRUMP!

Makes sense. Presidents are protected within their official duties, but not for their unofficial acts.

It's looking more and more like the Mar-A-Lago raid was an example of the weaponization of government after all, and one against a political opponent as well as former President. It's looking like some departments of government are in serious need of some major reforms.

.....

This has nothing to do with the Mar-a-Lago/Espionage Act case. If it had, that case would also have been paused while the Supreme Court figured this all out, and it wasn't.

Jack Smith made it very clear in the opening paragraph of the Espionage Act case indictment that Trump was being charged ONLY for actions that he undertook AFTER he left office and ceased being POTUS. Any action he took after he was no longer POTUS could not be official Presidential acts, by definition.

a reply to: EndTime

Broadly, I think yes. In practice I think there's enough to shut that down before it gets to that point.

a reply to: Boomer1947

The Fani case is nuked.
Fani will end up paying for her corrupt garbage office though.
Brags case will be kicked on appeal.
Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed so that case will be done as well.
Now what?

originally posted by: EndTime
Can anyone provide some insight on the following scenarios…

If a president wanted to deny the election results under a false premise, could they refuse to relinquish power without fear of prosecution?

If a president wanted to target and imprison a political rival based on claimed illegality, they could also get away with under this new ruling?

You mean a President like Joe Biden, for example?

a reply to: Vermilion

Judge Comey Barrett specifically stated in a footnote in today's opinion that she believes the fake elector scheme does not fall under the office immunity. So don't quite count your chickens yet on that one.

can't believe they dare to betray America like this, fools don't yet realize this path is tyranny and the failure of the American experiment, the end of equality under law and the Advent of anarchy, the end of bicameralism, breaking of the balance of power, ushering us into an age of opportunism and chaos. it'll destroy us like it did rome, RIP the republic and the empire will stumble and fall flat on its face before going anywhere, because we are not rome, we couldn't last even half as long before reaching this stage.

a reply to: namehere

What are you babbling about?

Who is they?

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: EndTime
Can anyone provide some insight on the following scenarios…

If a president wanted to deny the election results under a false premise, could they refuse to relinquish power without fear of prosecution?

If a president wanted to target and imprison a political rival based on claimed illegality, they could also get away with under this new ruling?

You mean a President like Joe Biden, for example?

why not, now its perfectly legal..