Trump's Immunity Claim
 

"Supreme Court agrees to consider Trump immunity claim in further delay of election interference trial" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ase-rcna139026

I'm disappointed they took it. It isn't worth consideration. It's not in the Constitution.

Pointless, abject cowardice on the part of the Court particularly in light of the fact that an Appeals Court already rules unanimously there was no such immunity. It is not often the Supreme Court will even agree to hear a case of an appeal when the appeal result was unanimous.

Generally correct but time constraints are forcing their (SCOTUS) hand. I think that if the election was 2-3 years off that they may have waited for a trial, verdict and possible appeal. This case presents some issues that have never been adjudicated. Trump's claim that future Presidential decisions would be unduly tempered by fear of vengeful opposite party prosecution after office has, imo, some validity.

This could be classified under 'be careful what you wish for'. That a president be prosecuted for actions taken that are part of his/her duties is one thing but what Trump is saying is that he can commit any acts totally unrelated to the office of the president. If the Supreme Court were to rule in his favor, that would mean 'crooked Joe Biden' would be able to do anything he wanted to Trump and not be prosecuted since he (Biden) is the current president.

Trump has already stated publicly on a number of occasions that he would do this, so what's the complaint? That only he can engage in this kind of behavior but anyone else elected cannot?

Could have been done except that Trump has been doing everything possible to delay the trial.

I'm mystified that the SCOTUS made such an odd decision. I suppose it's not surprising given the fact that they're a conservative bunch. Jack Smith now has a poor chance of trying Trump prior to November 5, 2024. I'm hopeful Trump will be convicted soon in New York.

Kim Wehle, constitutional law scholar at U Baltimore, discusses this issue informingly on NPR's ‘Morning Edition’: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/12347...ution-in-april .

Time constraints would have been better-addressed by rejecting the case. It wouldn't surprise me if they affirm the appeals court decision. I expect Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson to affirm; Thomas and Alito to reject; uncertain about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. 4 had to grant cert to take the case.

Years ago I believe that Gorsuch ruled against absolute immunity. So if he follows his own precedent then he should rule against Trump.

I'm unaware of any recent case involving "absolute immunity" for a President. That doesn't mean that there wasn't one.

Edit: Presidents were given absolute immunity for "political" acts in the case that established judicial revue by scotus - Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Roberts is a snake-in-the-grass. He won't come down on the losing side in one of the most important cases in SCOTUS history. I look for either a 6-3 decision to reject or 5-4 to affirm.

It's a nice link but Wehle essentially blames Garland for his lack of urgency in appointing a Special Prosecutor. Smith gathered huge amounts of 'testimony' over 2.5? years with a huge budget. Shouldn't the defense be given equal opportunity of discovery?

I am of two minds with regard to the recent shenanigans of the SCOTUS: Overturning Roe V. Wade and enabling a criminal president.
I am appalled that women have lost the right to make choices with their bodies and I find it awful that the SCOTUS is supporting Trump. On the other hand all of this is your fault. Voters elected republican presidents, congressmen, and senators. What did you think was going to happen?
If you're pissed off with the current state of affairs then vote the bastards out. It's your choice.

The SCOTUS has already ruled on "Article 2" many times in the past two hundred years. They concluded for example that he was immune from civil liability, but this is the first time that a political opponent has tried to put a President in prison. Nevertheless, the precedent is already clear.

The President is a one-person Branch of Government, given powers and responsibilities afforded to no other person. He must sometimes act when he has no "time" and "incomplete information." Yet he must sometimes act boldly. If another Branch, or a State or a County, could threaten him with prison for making a decision or a statement that they did not approve of, then of course they would do exactly that ... endlessly. And so it would be utterly impossible for the President to govern. Very soon, no one in his right mind would volunteer to hold the position, and "Article 2" would fall apart.

The Constitution does provide for "impeachment," requiring a super-majority of both Houses of Congress. And the SCOTUS has ruled that "successful impeachment" is a prerequisite for criminal prosecution. (The Constitution carefully states that impeachment is not a criminal indictment.) So, the President is not "above the law," but the entirely unique nature of his position is recognized.

There are over 2,000 counties in this country who can convene a Grand Jury. So, it only takes seven people and a zealous prosecutor. Each and every time the President made a decision, some Grand Jury somewhere would immediately indict him or her. At 12:01 PM on the end of the term, this President would promptly be arrested and would face more than 1,000 years in prison. You can easily see where this is going ... and, politics being what it is, there is no doubt that this is exactly what would occur.

It's a court, not a political opponent and the defendant isn't a president.

Your argument gives the president the right to assassinate his political rivals, as his lawyers have argued he has.

What if he has senators he suspects of 'disloyalty' assassinated?

I missed this decision. I've heard it debated recently.

But the president and a third+1 of the surviving senators are.

Just because a grand jury indicts doesn't put anyone in prison.

Do you want Biden to exercise these powers? Obama? Clinton?

NPR's Nina Totenberg discusses the issue usefully on 'All things considered': https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/12350...munity-hearing
Lee Kovarsky expresses an opinion worth considering in 'Trump Should Lose. But the Supreme Court Should Still Clarify Immunity.': https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/o...-immunity.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...immunity-case/ is also thoughtful

I surmise that you already know “your intended outcome,” and all that I can say is: “be careful what you wish for.”

Donald Trump is “the ultimate evil.” Uh huh. Don’t you know how utterly bloodthirsty “politics” can be? Only one person at a time gets to be “President,” and he is surrounded by ever-envious hangers-on who simply want to take him down.

There would be no “Presidential Libraries.” There would only be prison cells equipped with tombs.

Going forward, it wouldn’t simply be any particular Officeholder: it would become The Office, Itself. Because now you need only eight people – seven jurors and one ambitious prosecutor – to “bring down a President.” And you can now multiply this over two thousand times. The desire would be irresistible. It would begin on day two of his-or-her term.

Every “podunk county, anywhere” would promptly jump on, and millions of “not-so-secret dollars” would be spent to “encourage” all of them. (Think: “color revolution.”)

Please don’t try to suggest to me that “actual human politics” is not PRECISELY like this …

I am pleased that there are republicans like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney that speak out about the clear and present danger that Trump poses to America and the World. I am continually amazed that there are republicans that are able to ignore Trump's criminal activity and obvious mental decline. The MAGA horde will likely vote for Trump even if he's a convicted felon.
If it was legal for me(it is not) I would donate money to Biden's run at the Oval Office. If ever there was a time for Democrats to get involved in the 2024 election, this is it.
Encourage your kids, friends, and neighbors to vote for Joe.

Arguably, they probably have already done so, along with Trump and the Bushs. In fact Trump's attorney brought up Obama's extra-judicial killings of at least 4 American citizens without a trial to Judge Pan. The liberal media of course ran mostly with the S.E.A.L. Team 6 narrative.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6deY7XEVGM
CNN -Immunity, "Judge asks if a president can order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a rival. Hear Trump's lawyer respond"
0:21/8:16
'"Judge Pan: "Could a president order S.E.A.L. Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act, an order to S.E.A.L. Team 6."'

0:23/8:16
'"Trump Attorney: He would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution."
Judge Pan: "But if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?"'

0:27/8:16
'Trump Attorney: {Inaudble} .."and the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause, all clearly pre-suppose that what the founders were concerned about was not --"'

0:34/8:16
'Judge Pan: "I asked you a yes or no question. Could a president who ordered S.E.A.L. Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"'

0:48/8:16
'Trump Attorney: "If he were impeached and convicted first."
Judge Pan: "So your answer is no."
Trump Attorney: "My answer is a qualified yes."'

5:17/8:16
"To authorize the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a Pandora's Box from which this nation may never recover. Could George W. Bush be prosecuted for obstruction of an official proceeding for allegedly giving false information to Congress...

5:27/8:16
to induce the nation to go to war in Iraq under false pretenses? Could President Obama be potentially charged with murder for allegedly authorizing drone strikes targeting U.S. citizens located abroad?"
Emphasis mine.

It wasn't too long ago that Trump said that he was a billionaire. Yet lately he can't afford to post bond for his appeals. He's a fraud and a loser.

Perhaps you should spend your money trying to fix your government rather than fantasizing about interfering in our's (U.S. citizens.)

If I can sway some moderates away from the Trump madness then my work here is done. I'll do whatever I want. You should go buy some gold sneakers from your glorious leader.
He's a total lunatic.

Lol, don't get your knickers in a wad. We get it, you don't like Trump, well guess what, I don't give a hoot what you think. Two straight threads where you have nothing to contribute to the OP except attempts to derail it. It would be nice to see something relative to the topic at hand.

Edit: Corrected spelling to satisfy the 'Grammar Canuck.'

"Where"

Spelling matters. :)
Trump supporters always get bent out of shape when their glorious leader gets shown to be a pervert,criminal. Have a nice day.

Thank you 'Grammar Canuck', since you have nothing on topic to add you can police spelling. :rolleyes:

I'll add name calling to your skill set. Typical ad hominem attack from a Republican. Haha. I'm looking forward to Trump going broke and being convicted. Enjoy your day.

Thanks. Still nothing even remotely on topic. You guys are nothing if not consistent. Back on topic - did you find where Gorsuch had ruled previously in a case on Presidential immunity?

Edit: Oh, by the way, I'm a registered Democrat who voted for both Jimmy Carter and Obama... once.

"Revenge," just like "Envy," is a very poisonous fruit that tastes deliciously sweet on the first bite . . .

Indeed. Well-said. Trump enjoys the use of revenge tactics. He bragged about killing the bill which would have improved border security. Lawmakers caved because they feared retaliation from Hitler-lite.
Trump received a chilly reception from the good people of Texas. Unfortunately for Trump the numbers are not trending his way within the GOP.

Back on topic. I'm hopeful that the SCOTUS will realize that granting Trump absolute immunity would be an insane thing to do given the fact that Trump says he'll be a dictator on day one in office.

We, fortunately, have 3 co-equal branches of government. H.R. 2 (Secure the Border Act of 2023) passed the House and has been sitting in Chuck Schumer's Senate since "Senate - 05/16/2023 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. This bill makes various changes to immigration law, including by imposing limits on asylum eligibility and requiring employers to use an electronic system to verify the employment eligibility of new employees." https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-...-bill/2/titles
Where is the liberal outrage that this bill hasn't been brought up for discussion?

What Trump says as histrionic 'political'speech doesn't matter. Both he or Biden will be 'lame duck' Presidents and increasingly less influential day by day. All Presidents gained immunity for 'political' acts with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.

Ordinarily I would agree with you, that is, that Trump was engaging in hyperbole. However, Trump doesn't really have a sense of humor. I don't think he was joking about being a dictator. He adores dictators like Putin who can on a whim kill someone. I believe Trump when he says he wants to be a dictator. He has no respect for the democratic process; he doesn't like democracy. He demonstrated his contempt for democracy on January 6, 2021.

I believe he should be convicted for his crimes by a jury of his peers if he is proven guilty. The first trial is the election interference trial which sounds like a slam dunk. He wasn't the president when he committed those crimes, just a candidate.

Which the Republicans loved

If he wins in 2024, Liddle Donnie will run in 2028. Amendment 25 says he can't serve, doesn't prevent him from running. If Democratic states keep him off the ballot, Republican states will keep the Dem off the ballot, the election will go to the House, where each state has 1 vote, which will vote for Liddle Donnie. Who's going to stop him from Presidenting?

? I studied this, but it was 60 years ago, so I can't count on my memory. Judicial review was the signal significance as I remember: SCOTUS had the right to rule on the case. I see nothing about immunity.

An infamous jurist famously observed that he could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. If a prosecutor can impanel all jurors he likes he can go after anybody, president or not. That won't happen to a prominent White man in the US, though we have railroaded people of color and people we didn't like, such as Eugene Debs, who ran from jail in 1920.

Pages 6-8 of the Trump application for stay dicusses this matter at length. I'm not a lawyer but as best as I can understand the two positions are that Trump's side argues that he must be impeached before he can be held liable for 'political' acts, done while in office, which might be deemed illegal by his political opposition after a President leaves office. Smith argues the opposite. There are of course also other issues.
On Application for Stay of the Mandate To Be Issued by the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - No. 23A745 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...ited-states-2/

'"Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion is repeated and emphatic on this point. “[W]hatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion.” Id. When it comes to the President’s discretionary acts, “the decision of the executive is conclusive.” Id. “By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience.”'


Special Prosecutor Jack Smith (RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE MANDATE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT) - No. 23A745

"It is true that courts cannot enter an injunction against a sitting President directing his performance of official acts, see id. at 14 (citing authorities and Department of Justice filings), but that protection against judicial direction of the President’s ongoing conduct of office does not suggest that courts are disabled from holding a former President accountable when his actions violate federal criminal law." https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...resp_FINAL.pdf

I've often pondered Trump's fate had he tried to overturn a Putin "election". Hmmm. I doubt he's be such a fan then. I guess it's a matter of whose Ox is gored. Curiouser and curiouser...

I'd like know how it is legal for Biden to forgive student loans.

Liddle Donnie is a spoiled 4-year-old thrilled by the attention his tantrums attract. He isn't evil. People attach themselves to him to pursue their own agendas, ranging from Paul Ryan, who just wanted a tax cut (a normal government decision) to the Federalist Society, which wants to take over the judiciary, to Stephen Miller who wants to keep immigrants out, Islamophobes who want to keep Muslims out, anti-choicers, 'Christian' supremacists, White supremacists. Do you remember Liddle Donnie's first mention of a possible SCOTUS justice? Mary Anne Barry, a pro-choice appeals court judge. He had nothing to do with Ryan's tax cut, other than signing it, and knew nothing about his judicial appointees, was disappointed in the ones who followed the law rather than his preferences.

You can do this to anybody anytime. If you want to aim at a former president you can refer to his acts before or after his tenure. Is that what's happening in our courts?


I read Marbury v. Madison; it's not too long, or too difficult. I notice that they refer to English law often; many 'conservatives' reject referring to any foreign law. It indeed rules that the president exercises supreme power, not subject to question, for ’mere political acts‘.

The word political has become useless in modern speech. It used to be the adjective for the word policy; Marshall means pursuing government policy, not selling yourself to people and whipping up hate against others or running for office. That limits the application of the ruling to the pursuit of government policy, which is set by law. It doesn't mean suborning witnesses, trying to get a VP to throw out legitimate electors, offering up one's own, storming the Capitol, trying to get the leader of another country to manufacture evidence against an electoral rival, bribing paramours, giving away government secrets. If he wants to do those things legally, he can ask Congress to pass a law.

Impeachment isn't mentioned.

I thought it was illegal for Obama to kill those 4 American citizens. I don't think any court could fairly convene a jury to convict him. I think the same will happen in Liddle Donnie's trials: any fairly-convened jury will have at least 1 dissenter.

It's just as immoral to kill millions of Vietnamese, Afghans, and Iraqis, but not illegal.

Finally, Marbury v. Madison is just a SCOTUS decision, not the Constitution. SCOTUS can vacate it whenever they like. This particular court has shown a facility for vacating precedents.

So your greatest concern is with college students trained for high level work that could benefit the public if they weren't saddled with predatory debt, but pay no mind to the BILLIONS of dollars in Corporate Welfare, like Oil Depletion Allowance, Bank and Saving and Loans bailouts, and as far back as the late 1800s subsidy of many industries like Railroads and Alcoa Aluminum?

Our Government has long tried to incentivize areas that increase the GNP and keep the brightest working in their fields of expertise instead of flipping burgers. If you're unfamiliar with the above mentioned corporate welfare programs, it would be highly enlightening to look those up.

Down here "on the ground" where most of us live, I personally know many who lost their entire life savings retirement funds from Savings and Loan companies that got bail-out money instead of jail time. I seriously don't think paying off Student Loans would have anything remotely like that negative result, and that's just one of many.

You might wanna take a hard look at priorities.

So could DT be elected and in prison at the same time?

According to this Politico article the answer is yes.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...rison-00090931

Eugene Debs ran from prison in 1920, received a million votes. Harding pardoned him.

It is not a secret that passing a bill in the Senate takes, with some specific exemptions, a 60% majority. If the minority party stands together to block a bill there is no way that the Majority party can pass it unless they hold 60% of the seats. Guess what, neither party holds 60% and Republicans can block almost everything. And they DO! But HR2 was not the bipartisan bill that would have solved more immigration issues and financed aid to Ukraine and Israel. That was a Senate bill and was bipartisan: but even the Republicans who had helped write the bill voted against it.

Let me say that again: they had a bill that increased border security, revamped and restricted asylum entry, gave conservatives everything they had asked for on Ukraine and Israel, and that Republicans had negotiated and helped to write and they STILL killed it. Not because there was anything in it that was not exactly what they wanted, but because Trump said to kill it. He was afraid that if it passed with Biden's signature then Biden would get credit and it might swing the election for Democrats.

Democrats were willing to compromise for the good of the country, and Republicans gave up the country for the good of the party. This kind of crud is why I stopped voting for Republicans, even the ones I like.

Even if Trump were NOT guilty of crimes against the country, multiple states, and the Constitution itself, he should still never be elected for any office: he is literally to bad for the country. Multiple state courts have found that the evidence that he is guilty of insurrection is adequate to prevent him from appearing on any ballot in that state: constitutionally they have that right and the SCOTUS has no basis to override them, but with this SCOTUS we will have to wait and see.

The two cases: immunity and state rights to control their elections, are up for SCOTUS review.

I think this best illustrates the stark differences between the two candidates. Biden is not above playing politics, but, he more often than not puts the interests of America ahead of his own. Trump is a nihilist, he doesn't believe in anything other than putting his own interests first. The republican members of Congress are cowards.

If the court rules for absolute presidential immunity, and Biden then has Liddle Donnie assassinated, and 34 senators acquit, that'll be cool with you?

By Amy Howe on March 4 at 12:09 p.m.

"In an unsigned ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. The court held that only Congress can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars former officers of the United States who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office again, against candidates for federal offices." https://www.scotusblog.com/

"States have no authority to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday, short-circuiting efforts by his detractors to declare him disqualified over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol." https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...-says-00144673

^ That is quite possibly a terrible outcome for Mr. Trump.

SCOTUS has effectively said that Congress has the authority to make the final decision on whether Mr. Trump is allowed to be disqualified from the ballot.

How many Republican members of the current Congress are opposed to Mr. Trump's 2024 Presidential campaign?

According to one source, there are at least 11 representatives and 6 senators on that list.

Those numbers would give the Democrats enough support to have Mr. Trump disqualified... and, according to SCOTUS, there would be nothing he could do about it.

^^^ Correct of course but the ballgame was over had SCOTUS ruled against him. Several of those on that list had endorsed DeSantis and Haley. Haley said today that she agreed with the ruling. It's difficult to see anything passing both the House and Senate.

Theoretically, "Congress" could "simply rule" that only one 'candidate' is "permitted" to be on the ballot – using whatever convenient excuse then suits them.

And – "we have always known that." Yet, for the past more-than two hundred years, we have continued to pretend that "human beings" are not "what they really are, if but given a chance."

In many ways, today, I'm just reminded of the wisdom that was expressed in the final verses of "John 2."

Maybe, today, we are "being very unpleasantly reminded" of the extent to which some people will go, in order to secure "power" ... only for themselves. We are speaking of "human nature" at its very worst. Let us not continue to pretend, because all of us know better.

But I also perceive, among all of these "now very loud-talking people," both a definite myopia and an utter lack of knowledge of history. My guess is that these people "all grew up in ... an echo chamber." And, an entirely(!) privileged one. And so, they are now "dancing on the beach, [of course] 'drunk as a skunk.'" Waiting to go to the nearest restaurant and plunk down hundreds of dollars (why not?) for a meal. It is the only 'life' they have ever known.

None of them see that the water is rising at their feet. None of them have ever heard the word, 'tsunami.'

Being utterly ignorant of "history," they once again count themselves "exceptional." And there is no one "within their(!) earshot" to "tell them, 'No.'"

For example: "Benito Mussolini" was very much the same. Yet he and his mistress literally wound up: "upside-down on a gibbet, food for the ravens." (Ahhh ... the Italians always did have a certain flair for theater ...)

No, I do not espouse "violence," nor do I believe that "violence" is the only way that this matter can be resolved. But one thing is very sure to me: "these so-called 'elites' who have been 'ruling everything'" are just about to get their comeuppance. Because they are going "a Bridge too far," and don't even seem to know nor care. They very likely will soon discover that "the rule of law" matters a great deal to "hundreds of millions of people," but that it does not mean "what they think it does."

I'd disagree with that.

In the House they only need 5 Republicans to vote with them, and in the Senate they don't need any.

No, they cannot.

Never say "they cannot" when pure power is in play. There are a hundred "history lessons" over the courses of time to prove you otherwise.

We have already in very-recent history observed some of their successes: in 2020 causing every single Court, bottom to very-top, to "decline to hear" legal challenges, or to dismiss them for various administrative reasons. The charges that "election fraud," albeit a Federal crime, had actually occurred anywhere, were very-simply nullified.

(For instance, when several States brought a case before the Supreme Court, which according to "Article 3, Section 2," is "their Court of Primary Jurisdiction," they were simply told that they "had no standing." No further explanation was given, and thus the Plaintiffs were denied their fundamental legal right – "to be heard.")

The "Lawfare™" attorneys, who got their start by extorting major corporations to "settle" nuisance lawsuits, are far too "smug."

There are, right now, plenty of "elites" (sic ...) in this country who simply believe that everything is as they wish it to be. And the law which once prohibited "propaganda facing the American People" was conveniently nullified in a spending bill. But – "reality has a habit of showing up anyway." And I am quite confident that it won't show up in the form of a "Civil War 2.0."

"Couple thousand 'elites,' despite their job titles" versus "335 million actual people?" Those numbers don't look good . . . :D . . . and "civil war" is certainly not the likely resolution.

"We do not have to destroy this Country, in order to save it [from [itself|them]." We do not have to play by their rules.

You live in a country with checks and balances at every level. Congress cannot do what you seem to think it can do. That's not my opinion. It's fact.
Yeah, evidence is required in order to press charges. That's a fairly fundamental legal principle.
Methinks you better close Facebook... ;)