One year after Jan. 6, legal scholars were tussling over a weighty theoretical question: When can a President be prosecuted? Were Donald Trump’s actions in the run-up to the storming of the Capitol enough for him to be civilly — or even criminally — liable?
We want the presidents to be looking over their shoulder wondering if they would be jailed for their actions, and really scared about it too.
The court is not required to suss out actions than can or can not be considered, only the actions Trump took. The rest would only play into donnie’s strategy. Delay until election. If those justices who are hiding behind this excuse were so concerned, they could have begun deliberations when Smith presented them with the opportunity.
It’s very bold of Donald Trump to admit that he’s so much of a weak willed coward that he was afraid of being extorted and blackmailed as the President of the United States. Either that or, like so many other things, every accusation is an admission. Perhaps is that Donald Trump would, and has, blackmailed and extorted people using the power of his wealth and therefore it’s conceivable to him (and perhaps expected) that others would do the exact same thing.
It never ceases to amaze me how the MAGA crowd has come to worship such a demonstrably weak individual. But for the explanation that he gives them permission to indulge in their worst impulses I cannot understand how his most ardent supporters think that he cares about them.
Just more of Drumpf’s crocodile tears.
Godwilling, there will never be a case of a former president who is culpable for so many crimes. And the only way to ensure that is to prosecute this one and put him behind bars where he belongs.
It ain’t that complicated.
The court had 3 years to mull it over!
Yes, Trump’s ridiculous absolute immunity claim will be rejected by the Supreme Court. And, yes, it’s likely to take until the end of the term in early July. And, yes, that ensures the underlying January 6 criminal case won’t be decided prior to the November election.
This is exactly what Trump wants.
So, wait a minute - the question about immunity is really a different question than what brought the case to SCOTUS in the first place?
I thought all we were trying to deal with here was whether TIFBG crossed a line with his actions as President. Sounds like the elephant in the room has just grown into a mastodon.
If presidents have immunity from prosecution, they could just murder their political opponents including congress who might impeach them, or supreme court justices that rule against them, and be immune. So silly and absurd.
Really though, Presidents should not be immune from prosecution for any criminal acts, ever. “Official acts” that are criminal should be by definition not-official. Perhaps people in the executive branch who are following orders in good faith that they are informed by some legal advice are not criminal, but are criminal, might have some kind of defense (but we all know that being unaware of the law is not a defense), in the end the buck stops with the executive - if he orders something criminal, he is a criminal.
The article was interesting until that inane horseshit in the last paragraph. TFGs arguments aren’t legal, they are just pants wetting.
The president should have immunity when they are executing laws and policies set out in the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. They are executing national policy, even if the policy changes later it was the legal standard at that time so later prosecution would not make sense. That shouldn’t require an argument, because the president is managing national policy and protecting the national interest when they do these things.
Trying to overthrow an election result is not in any way executing laws or policies. It’s the exact opposite in fact, and a president must be accountable when they do things that are not in the national interest. It’s irrelevant if it’s not in the president’s or party’s interest, because those are not necessary the national interest…if the people vote the opposite of what they want they have defined the national interest and the president is required to follow their direction and process the election result accordingly. This should not be an arguable point.
There may be details to work around exactly when a president crosses the line from executing the national interest to executing their own personal interest, as sometimes both may be the same. But, anytime the president takes action in their own interest that is against the laws of the nation, that’s immediately out of line. There’s room in many legal areas where a president can act because the laws are fuzzy, but that’s the natural give and take of our system…election results are not one of these areas, especially when it comes to attempting to falsify the results and overturn the votes.
The facts of this case should be a slam dunk for the SC, if they say Trump has full immunity then they are saying the president can do whatever they want to overthrow an election result (among other things). They must realize that opens the door for Biden and the Democrats to pull shenanigans to cheat…of course the Democrats wouldn’t do that, but they could. I doubt that John Roberts wants to be responsible for a decision that could allow Trump or some other Republican to become our dictator, or any Democrat…I’m not so sure the rest of the Republican judges would have a problem with a Republican dictatorship.
The arguments in April are going to be a real show, as we watch to see which SC justices are in favor of a president ignoring election results and remaining in office indefinitely if they choose.
Mrs. Awiztherewas and I haven’t been mulling over much for the past 9 days. Highly recommend both the location and the checking out
Belize!
(Way too much time spent on geoguessr)
“This isn’t a hard case,” Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney, wrote. “The argument Trump makes — that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for anything they do in office, specifically, for trying to steal an election — has to be a loser.”
With this supremely cynical move the Supreme Court is acting as a partisan political actor rather than as a legitimately judicial actor.
They had to stretch to find some way to help their guy, so they resorted to what I called in college the first rule for answering essay questions, “If you can’t answer the question asked, answer another one.”
Of course no president in or out of office has absolute immunity, so they stretched their consideration to include the enormous universe of limited or case specific immunity.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT! IT IS ABOUT TRUMP’S CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY!
But, hey, any port in a storm. And like this Court is wont to do, they are crafting a way to justify a desired end. (The part that will require the most finesse and subtlety is how to craft a decision that will constrain Democratic but NOT Republican presidents - that will require extreme nuance.) This one doesn’t even pass the sniff test. It stinks.
Perhaps the historically most important aspect is that this gambit further erodes even the memory of when the Court had authority and legitimacy. They clearly forfeit their legitimacy with Bush v Gore, but have this far arguably held on, however tenuously, to their authority.
Having no physical or financial tools enforce their decisions, their authority rests on the American people believing that Supreme Court decisions are based on the law and facts, not partisan or individual preference. With this decision (effectively ensuring that the case will be buried until it is moot) the Court is denying the American people the knowledge that Trump is or is not a convicted criminal by the time they vote.
Deplorable.
Trump himself welcomed the Supreme Court taking the time to consider the issue in a post on Truth Social, claiming that
“legal scholars are extremely thankful” for the opportunity to mull the issuehe needs every second of every delay he can conjure.
Fixed.
The Supreme Court should be scrambling to recover some glimmer of their prior reputation as a principle driven organization. Once the Trump fiasco collapses , along with most of the GoP, it will be too late, Reputation irretrievable,
p
but progressives split between Sanders and Warren, sooooo.
