Trump Immunity — pretty much what was expected.
Absolute immunity for core POTUS powers.
PRESUMPTIVE IMMUNITY for "official acts."
No Immunity for private acts.CJ Roberts writes opinion, with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh join in full; Barrett joins all but one part;…
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 1, 2024
BREAKING: In Trump v. United States, US Supreme Court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) July 1, 2024
…No protection for unofficial acts. So the issue is whether what constitutes official acts. It is a very for Trump in the sense that the Court rejected the lower court and recognizes some immunity. That will further delay the lower court proceedings, but Trump will have to argue that his actions fall within these navigational beacons. The lower court judge has been highly favorable for Jack Smith in the past. Yet the court is arguing that there is a presumption of immunity for their official acts beyond the absolute immunity on core constitutional powers.
…Note this language:
Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.…”The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. When the Vice President presides over the January 6 certification proceeding, he does so in his capacity as President of the Senate. ”
…Now this:
“With respect to the certification proceeding in particular, Congress has legislated extensively to define the Vice President’s role in the counting of the electoral votes, see, e.g., 3 U. S. C. §15, and the President plays no direct constitutional or statutory role in that process. So the Government may argue that consideration of the President’s communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
The d&ath nail in Jack Smith’s case against Trump pic.twitter.com/VVHV5z4Nr6
— Spitfire (@DogRightGirl) July 1, 2024
Due to the Supreme Court ruling granting Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office:
The Jan 6th criminal case in Washington DC against Trump just was crushed.
The criminal case in Georgia against Trump will likely also be dismissed.
— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) July 1, 2024
Thomas Massie was right, Jack smith was unlawfully appointed. He can get fcked! pic.twitter.com/cskEwgO8v4
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) July 1, 2024
Big chunks of Smith's indictment are going to be lost to the "official authority" — interactions with other Exec. branch officials, particularly DOJ, are going to be off-limits and immune.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 1, 2024
Last paragraph of the official syllabus from the SCOTUS #immunity decision pic.twitter.com/LWE9l2IH7O
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) July 1, 2024
See author page
LINK
Oh, come on!
You know very well these three lefties would have insisted on a revisit of this issue when one of their own leaves office and needs it.
(Soon.)
.
Link
Liberal heads will explode. greg should be put on suicide watch.
Jonathan Turley:
Link
Greg’s first comment will be a variation of the following:
Response:
Immunity from prosecution has just been granted to an individual whom you feel is controlled by a malicious cabal and is mentally impaired, and you’re celebrating about it. Surely you’ll be as sanguine about anything Biden does now, right?
“Anything?”
No.
Altho a dissent (wise latina) said joe could even assassinate a political opponent, she was wrong.
The court found that presidents enjoy “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution” for actions taken within their constitutional authority and at least “presumptive immunity” for all other official acts.
No joe cannot be immune for, say, trying to kill Trump.
Let the record reflect that you brought that topic up, not I.
You wrote,“Surely you’ll be as sanguine about anything Biden does now, right?”
I just keyed in on “Anything.”
Sotomayor showed herself to be an idiot, but what else is new?
Kind of shows you how well the radical extremists the left puts on the Court understand the law.
What if biden refuses to abide by a peaceful transfer of power? Let’s say he, in his cognitive state of decline, declares martial law and appoints himself dictator.
After all, President Trump respected the peaceful transfer of power.
Oh, well, I guess?
joe’s puppet masters might try to defer the election over some false flag made-up crisis.
Again, no immunity.
“Again, no immunity.”
How do you figure?
Who are you referring to?
Biden. Don’t you think that he’s mentally impaired and controlled by a malicious cabal?
Of course I do. All the evidence proves it. But, Presidential immunity was already there; they didn’t just create it for Trump. You leftists just didn’t think the law applied to everyone across the board.
What I am in absolute in awe of is the genius of our government. Despite all the leftist attacks on the very fabric of our Constitutional republic, it keeps fighting back and protecting itself. That’s not to say it is invulnerable to all sustained attacks, but thus far, it continues to keep their fascist totalitarianism at bay.
The framers created an infallible document. It was not until Woodrow Wilson and other progressives began to monkey with the document working to remove its firewalls.
Well, thanks to President Trump and his three appointments, the Court is retreating to a more Constitutional and originalist court. Just in time to save America.
And, in a second Trump admin, it is more than likely the wise latina will leave the court based on her current health situations. That would make the court 7-2.
Good point.
I’m betting there’s more pressure on her to “retire,” during this admin than there is having joe back off running for next term.
“The framers created an infallible document.”
I guess it looks that way when things go in your direction. There have been decisions by the court that got you angry. Is. I don’t remember your singing the praises of its infallibility then.
You don’t understand how this decision applies to ALL Presidents? Like Obama murdering a US citizen without a trial? Or Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden murdering an entire Afghan family just to try and look tough? You ARE a moron, aren’t you?
“You don’t understand how this decision applies to ALL Presidents?”
Yes, I do. That’s kind of a retarded question, seeing as how you and I already had an exchange in this thread about this decision gives immunity to Biden, a president you believe to be mentally impaired and controlled by a malicious cabal.
*And* Biden is currently president, so all bets are off, I guess.
I still don’t like the decision. It makes the president more king-like than ever, and we had a revolution over that bullshit already.
Yes, it is a retarded question for an obviously retarded person. Nobody gives half a shit if you like it. You hate the Constitution and the nation and you believe laws are not in place to apply to everyone, just the Democrats’ opponents.
The framers dealt with immunity for legislators when speaking in Congress, so they clearly had discussions about immunity—they just didn’t apply it to presidents, for some reason.
That sounds like a screw-up, at least when viewed from the perspective of someone who wants immunity for the trident. Screw-ups seem to argue against infallibility.
In addition, the fact that the framers could have included it and didn’t argues against the “originalism” of inventing immunity now.
So, you believe Obama should be prosecuted for “Fast and Furious”, murdering Awlaki and spying on Trump.
People who violate the law should face consequences.
So you believe that Biden should never face consequences for any of the crimes you say he has committed? All those accusations of treason? Out the window.
Woah
I sense a Regan moment from the exorcist for greg.