DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SCOTUS Hears Trump Imunity Case

Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump immunity case

A federal court ruled earlier this year that Trump doesn't have presidential immunity in federal election case

Ahead of today's Supreme Court arguments, a federal appeals court ruled on February 6 that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency to reverse the 2020 election results.

The ruling was a major blow to Trump’s key defense thus far in the federal election subversion case brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith.

The former president had argued that the conduct Smith charged him over was part of his official duties as president and therefore shield him from criminal liability.

"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution," the court wrote.

The ruling from the three-judge panel was unanimous. The three-judge panel who issued the ruling included two judges, J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, who were appointed by Joe Biden and one, Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush.

"This has nothing to do with me" but is for future presidents, Trump says on federal immunity case

Former President Donald Trump said that the federal immunity case has nothing to do with him, but is important for future presidents, in his remarks outside of his criminal hush money trial courtroom in Manhattan on Thursday.

"I think that the Supreme Court has a very important argument before it today. I would've loved to have been there, but this judge would not let that happen. I should be there," Trump said. He added that he thinks that the president has to have immunity.

"If you don't have immunity you're not going to do anything. You're going to become a ceremonial president," Trump said. "You're not going to be taking any of the risks, both good and bad."

Trump claims that if the Supreme Court doesn't grant him immunity then other presidents will be prosecuted once they leave office.

In historic immunity case, both sides claim mantle of history

Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly cited George Washington’s farewell address in the immunity case to argue that even the Founding Fathers understood allowing presidents to be prosecuted would be bad for the nation.

But special counsel Jack Smith has drawn on another, less revered figure from American history: Richard Nixon.

Why, Smith has argued repeatedly, did Nixon need President Gerald Ford’s pardon in 1974 if he couldn’t have been prosecuted in the first place?

In part because the Constitution is silent about whether former presidents may claim immunity from criminal prosecution, attorneys for both Trump and Smith have relied heavily on history to gain an upper hand. The strategy is savvy for a Supreme Court where conservatives have placed a heavy emphasis on historical practices when it comes to disputes over abortion and guns.

Trump being Trump, some of his historic references have been more barbed. He has, for instance, argued that President Barack Obama could have been prosecuted for drone strikes that killed American citizens (but wasn’t) and that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt could have been charged with unlawfully detaining Japanese Americans during World War II (but wasn’t). At bottom, Trump’s argument is that if he doesn’t receive immunity, politically motivated prosecutions for such actions will become commonplace.

Smith has argued that none of those historic actions involved a sitting president attempting to hold onto power after losing an election.

Supreme Court arguments in blockbuster Trump immunity case have started

Arguments in what has the potential to be the most significant question before the high court this year – whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution – are now underway.

Leading off is D. John Sauer, representing Trump. A former Missouri solicitor general, Sauer will broadly argue that without some form of immunity future presidents would be inundated with prosecutions that would hamstring their ability to serve in the White House.

The justices will start quizzing Sauer with rapid-fire questions after roughly two minutes.

Trump attorney Sauer: Without absolutely immunity claim, "there can be no presidency as we know it"

Trump attorney John Sauer started off the arguments with opening remarks that said that if the Supreme Court did not endorse the former president's absolute immunity claim, "there can be no presidency as we know it."

“The implications of the court’s decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case," he said.

Sauer cited examples of conduct by former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, as well as President Joe Biden, that could otherwise be prosecuted.

Prosecuting a president for his official acts is "incompatible with our constitutional structure," Sauer said.

Justice Clarence Thomas asks about "official acts"

Justice Clarence Thomas asked Trump’s lawyer how the justices should weigh what is an “official act” of a president.

The debate over what is – and what isn’t – an “official act” is important because Trump is arguing that everything he’s accused of doing in the federal election subversion indictment was actually an official action in furtherance of his presidential duties.

If Trump's right, that could give him protection from prosecution.

The Justice Department, through special counsel Jack Smith, strongly disagrees with that interpretation. They say Trump’s actions were done as a candidate to benefit his campaign – not as a president acting for the country – and therefore, they’re fair game for prosecution.

Chief Justice John Roberts questions the scope of Trump's immunity claims

In a potentially key early exchange, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the scope of Trump’s argument when it comes to official acts: Would a president really have immunity if they appointed an ambassador, Roberts asked, in exchange for bribe?

A bribe, Roberts said, wouldn’t appear to be an official act. The question at least signals that Roberts may have concerns with Trump’s argument that his conduct after the 2020 election was an official act.

Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, is arguing that any "official act" that an executive does as president would be protected by presidential immunity.

“Let say the official act is appointing ambassadors, and the [resident appoints that particular individual to a country but it’s in exchange for a bribe,” Roberts said. “Somebody says ‘I’ll give you a million dollars if I made the ambassador to whatever.’ How do you analyze that?”

WHAT TO KNOW: In early questioning, several conservative justices are skeptically questioning the scope of Trump's arguments.

Sotomayor presses Trump attorney on "personal gain" of Trump’s alleged acts

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed Trump’s attorney on whether the former president should be protected from prosecution for acts of “personal gain” as opposed to official acts, raising the hypothetical of an ordered assassination of a political rival.

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military … to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” Sotomayor asked.

“That could well be an official act,” Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, said.

But, Sotomayor retorted, he’s doing it for “personal gain,” adding, "Isn’t that the nature of the allegations here?”

“A president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office — that’s what you’re trying to get us to hold — without facing criminal liability,” Sotomayor said. Sauer argued the law does not “turn on the allegedly improper motivation or purpose” of the act.

Justice Jackson: "What was up with the pardon for President Nixon?”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson turned Donald Trump's historical arguments on immunity on their head, pressing his attorney on evidence that, historically, presidents assumed they could be subject to criminal prosecution.

She cited the assertions of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, as well as comments made by the Founding Fathers.

If a president can't be prosecuted, why did Richard Nixon need to be pardoned after Watergate to prevent him from being prosecuted, Jackson asked.

Analysis: Justices are probing if there's a test for official conduct for presidents

The justices are pushing on the idea there could be a test they set up for determining if a president's actions are part of his official conduct.

Trump's team in briefs has argued that if the Supreme Court goes this route, they should send the case back to the lower courts for more rounds of legal determination — which could result in extensive further delays to a trial.

The Justice Department doesn't want this, which could result in more rounds of appeals before a trial.

This is what has happened in the civil lawsuits against Trump for January 6, 2021, however.

Conservative justice Alito asks if Trump’s “very robust” immunity claim is appropriate

Justice Samuel Alito noted that former President Donald Trump is demanding “very robust” protections from prosecution, and asked Trump’s lawyer if that sweeping immunity claim is “necessary.”

This suggests that Alito, who is one of the most conservative justices on the high court, might be considering supporting a narrower immunity protection than what Trump is seeking.

Gorsuch references appeals court ruling that civil lawsuits against Trump could move forward

Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed to an appeals court decision about Trump’s civil immunity, asking how a court should determine which acts a former president can be held responsible for in court.

In the decision Gorsuch is asking about, called Blassingame, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decided campaign activity is not part of the presidency in a civil lawsuit. This is a case where several people are suing Trump for fueling the harm they suffered on January 6, 2021.

Trump’s team didn’t take that decision to the Supreme Court for more challenges, and the January 6 lawsuits are back before the trial court for further proceedings, to figure out if Trump’s behavior around January 6 would be campaign activity or presidential work.

The appeals court in DC, Gorsuch said, created a test that “expressed some views about how to segregate private conduct, for which no man is above the law from official acts.”

Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, said that that court created a “very persuasive test” that “would be a great source for this court to rely on.”

Justice Alito brings up the hypothetical Seal Team 6 scenario

In bringing up the hypothetical of whether a president would be protected by immunity if he used the military to assassinate an individual, Justice Samuel Alito noted that he did not want to slander Seal Team Six in the theoretical situation.

The hypothetical assassination scenario has been brought up throughout this case, including in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, has continued to say a president could be protected from prosecution for such an act.

US Circuit Judge Florence Pan cited it earlier this year testing the boundaries of Trump’s argument.

Sauer at the time acknowledged that under the sweeping immunity claims his client has put forth, prosecution for that crime likely would not happen.

But the exchange prompted a series of amici briefs at the Supreme Court debating the relationship between the civilian leader of the US military and the service members who are usually bound to follow orders from their commander-in-chief. Some of those briefs note that members of the military are barred from following an illegal order.

Other told the high court that the reality is more complicated.

"Receiving an unlawful order thus places service members -- already pushed to extremes by virtue of their vocation -- in a nearly impossible position,” according to one brief filed by several retired four-star admirals and generals.

“On the one hand, disobeying a lawful order is punishable by court-martial and contrary to everything service members have been trained to do,” the generals and admirals argued. “On the other hand, the duty to disobey imposes on them the obligation not to rationalize obedience of an unlawful order simply out of deference to one’s superiors.”

Is there a difference between a president and a candidate, Justice Thomas asks?

Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether Donald Trump’s team believed there was a difference between actions taken as president and actions taken as a candidate for reelection.
"“In assessing the official acts of a president, do you differentiate between president acting as president, and the president acting as candidate?” Thomas asked."

Lower courts have said that an act as a candidate would likely not be protected under presidential immunity.

Trump “absolutely” had right to put forward fake electors in 2020, his lawyer says

Trump lawyer D. John Sauer said Thursday that his client “absolutely” had the right to put forward Republican electors in states that he lost in 2020, commonly called “fake electors.”

He made these comments under questioning from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked if “it’s plausible” that a president might have the right to help create a “fraudulent slate” of electors.

In response, Sauer said there was historical precedent for presidents to get involved with these matters, pointing to the contested election of 1876. He used the term “so-called fraudulent electors.”

Federal and state prosecutors clearly disagree with this view. The Justice Department charged Trump with federal crimes in connection with the fake electors scheme. And state prosecutors in Michigan, Georgia, Nevada and Arizona have also charged many of the illegitimate GOP electors and some Trump campaign officials who were involved in the plot.

Key moment: Barrett gets Trump attorney to concede there are private acts in indictment

Justice Amy Coney Barrett — a Donald Trump appointee — got Trump attorney D. John Sauer to agree with characterizations by special counsel Jack Smith that several of the Trump acts alleged in the indictment are "private" acts.

"So you concede the private acts don't get immunity?" Barrett said.
"We do," Sauer said.

Barrett went through four particular acts by Trump — including his alleged involvement in the fake electors scheme — and Sauer did not dispute Smith's arguments, in briefs filed to the court, that they were not official conduct.

Getting Sauer to make the concession that there are private acts alleged in the indictment suggests the trial could go forward at least in part, CNN's Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, says.

Supreme Court is signaling skepticism over absolute immunity for Trump

The Supreme Court in early questioning seems skeptical of former President Donald Trump’s claim that he is entitled sweeping or absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.

Virtually all of the questioning, including from several of the court’s conservatives, suggested that the court was leaning toward drawing a distinction between official acts, which might be entitled to immunity, and private acts, which likely would not.

Tellingly, Trump’s attorney appeared to concede that several of the claims involved in Trump’s case were private acts. Special counsel Jack Smith has argued that if that’s the case, then it should return to a federal district court in Washington, DC, for a speedy trial.

Kagan: "The president was not supposed to be above the law"

Justice Elena Kagan cited the framers of the US Constitution, saying they didn’t want a “monarch” to rule the country.

“They were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law,” Kagan said.
"“Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch, and the president was not supposed to be above the law?”"

The justices have been forcefully questioning Trump’s attorney over what acts – if any – should be liable for criminal prosecution.

Judges from around the country have said Trump can be held accountable for January 6

The high court is by no means bound by how other federal courts have interpreted the legitimacy of Trump’s post-election conduct.

But if the justices decide that Trump’s attempts to reverse his loss were in the realm of official presidential conduct, they’ll be rebuffing the assessments of a broad swath of lower court judges – appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike – who have concluded otherwise.

The justices will be hearing arguments on Trump’s claims that the protections of the presidency immunize his alleged election subversion conduct. The case will decide whether the federal criminal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith against Trump for his 2020 election schemes can go forward.

At the heart of the issue is whether Trump was acting within the “outer perimeters” of his presidential duties in a campaign that allegedly included urging state officials to reverse his election loss, pressuring his vice president to disrupt Congress’ certification of the electoral results and falsifying presidential electors to rival those from the states that Joe Biden won.

Courts in Washington, DC, Georgia and California have considered from a variety of angles the potential legal consequences that Trump and some allies could face for their 2020 gambits. They’ve approached it in disputes over the congressional probe into the Trump actions preceding and during the attack on Capitol, and in the context of civil January 6, 2021-related litigation against Trump and his allies.

Kagan: "That sure sounds bad"

Justice Elena Kagan pushed Trump’s attorney on just how far presidential immunity could go, raising the hypothetical scenario of a military coup by an ex-president.

“How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup?” Kagan asked.

“If it’s an official act, there needs to be impeachment and conviction beforehand” through Congress, Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, said.

Kagan asked if Sauer believed such a coup would be an “official act.”

“On the way you described that hypothetical, it could well be,” Sauer said.

“That sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?” Kagan said.

Gorsuch asks whether fear of prosecution might lead all presidents to pardon themselves

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Donald Trump’s attorney about what fears different presidents might have if they believed they could be criminally charged by their successors once leaving office.
"“What would happen if presidents were under fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office,” Gorsuch asked, citing hypotheticals other justices used, such as a “drone strike.”"

“It seems to me like one of the incentives that might be created is for presidents to try to pardon themselves,” Gorsuch said, adding that the high court has “never answered whether the president can do that” because “happily it’s never been presented to us.”

Brett Kavanaugh signals support for some Trump arguments

Justice Brett Kavanaugh offered several friendly questions to Donald Trump’s attorney, potentially signaling support for at least some of the former president’s arguments.

Kavanaugh, for instance, seemed to push back on the special counsel’s position that there’s no reference in the Constitution about immunity for former presidents.

“It’s not explicit in the Constitution but also executive privilege is not explicit in the Constitution,” Kavanaugh said, referencing an established idea that presidents may withhold documents and information from the other branches.

Kavanaugh, appointed by Trump in 2018, is always a key vote to watch in major Supreme Court disputes and his questions signaled he may be more supportive of Trump’s arguments than some of his conservative colleagues, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Analysis: Trump's attorney has rolled back much of what the former president previously argued

No matter the close reading of the justices' questions, Trump attorney D. John Sauer has dialed back much of what Trump's team has tried to argue in court before — about the presidency, and even in Trump's own case.

Previously, Trump's team argued the entire indictment against him should be dismissed. But now Sauer is outlining pieces of the indictment that could be tested in court, while some could not.

So far, he has said:

Trump calling Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger about finding votes is NOT official act
Trump calling the Republican National Committee about fake electors IS an official act
Trump calling the Arizona house speaker to hold a hearing on fraud IS an official act

This is a new aspect of Trump's arguments, where Sauer appears to be leaning into the justices wanting to set up a test for official acts versus non-official acts, potentially as a way to elongate pre-trial proceedings in this case.

In the bigger picture of the presidency, Sauer and Trump's team previously took the position in court that no federal criminal charges were possible about a president's time in office, unless Congress convicted the president in an impeachment proceeding.

Now, Sauer said to Justice Brett Kavanaugh that would only be the process that would allow a criminal case if the impeachment was about official acts.

Michael Dreeben: Jack Smith’s lawyer takes the stage

Now Michael Dreeben, a veteran Supreme Court advocate who is representing special counsel Jack Smith, will take his position behind the lectern to address the court.

Dreeben will argue that nothing in the nation’s history or law suggests that a former president should have immunity from prosecution. If his written briefs are any indication, Dreeben will attempt to drive home the broad point for the nine justices that no one – not even former presidents – are above the law.

Like Trump’s attorney, Dreeben will speak for about two minutes uninterrupted and will then begin fielding questions from the justices.

Dreeben has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court.

Dreeben became among the nation’s foremost authorities on criminal law during more than three decades with the solicitor general’s office, the section of the Justice Department that handles appellate cases on behalf of the federal government.

It’s not Dreeben’s first run representing a special counsel. In 2017, Dreeben he joined special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In often-told story underscoring his fluency with the high court and its members, Dreeben argued his first case in 1989. The opposing lawyer in the case was John Roberts, who would go to become chief justice.

Barrett presses Trump's attorney on claims impeachment is a "gateway" to criminal charges

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Trump’s attorney on why a president alone should be required to be impeached in the Senate before being subjected to criminal prosecution.

“You’ve argued that the impeachment clause suggests or requires impeachment to be a gateway to criminal prosecution, right?” Barrett asked.

“Yes,” Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, said of the impeachment clause.
"“There are many other people who are subject to impeachment, including the nine sitting on this bench,” Barrett said, “and I don’t think anyone has ever suggested that impeachment would have to be the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many other officers subject to impeachment.""

“So why is the president different when the impeachment clause doesn’t say so?” Barrett asked.

Sauer cited an opinion from former Solicitor General Robert Bork, who – Sauer said – found the sequence of impeachment in the Senate was required before criminal prosecution only for a president.

It's worth noting that when Trump was impeached in early 2021, there were several Republicans who argued at the time that it was unnecessary because Trump could face criminal charges for his conduct.

Justice Jackson: Absolute immunity could make the Oval Office "the seat of criminal activity in this country"

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that absolute immunity could turn the Oval Office into "the seat of criminal activity in this country."

She said there would no incentive for presidents to follow the law while in the White House if they could never face criminal prosecution.

Her stinging remarks came after she pressed Donald Trump's attorney D. John Sauer on why presidents should not be required to follow the law when acting in their official capacity.
""There are lots of people who have to make life and death decisions" and still face the risk of criminal prosecution, she said."

After the justices had spent several exchanges trying to decipher the line between a president's private and public acts, Jackson aimed to challenge the assumption that officials acts should be immune.

"You seem to be worried about the president being chilled. I think that we would have a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn’t chilled," she said.

Justice Thomas begins questions to special counsel by asking about "official acts"

In the first question to special counsel Jack Smith’s attorney Michael Dreeben, Justice Clarence Thomas remained focused on the question of whether presidents are protected for conducting “official acts.”

“Are you saying there is no presidential immunity even for official acts?” Thomas asked.

Dreeben responded yes, but said that a president could assert immunity to “objections to criminal laws that interfere with an exclusive power possessed by the president, or that prevent the president from accomplishing his constitutionally assigned functions.”

“That is the constitutional doctrine that currently governs” immunity, he said.

Richard Nixon takes center stage in Trump immunity case

Donald Trump’s claim that he is entitled to sweeping immunity from criminal charges is a novel theory, but it doesn’t come out of thin air. He partly rests his argument on a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found former presidents are entitled to immunity from civil litigation for their actions in office.

The case has come up several times Thursday morning, including a mention from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald involved a former Air Force employee, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, who was fired after he provided damaging testimony to Congress about production problems with the C-5A transport plane. Fitzgerald sued Nixon for damages.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents are entitled to immunity from such lawsuits in part because of their “unique office.”
"Because of the “singular importance of the president's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government.” "

That immunity, the court ruled, extended to the “outer perimeter” of a president’s authority. In other words, the protection was broad.

Trump argues the same protections should apply to a former president for criminal charges because the same concerns about the “functioning of government” should apply. But special counsel Jack Smith says criminal charges are different, in part because the Justice Department has a strong interest in enforcing criminal laws and also because of “safeguards against unfounded” prosecutions he says are built into the system.

Chief Justice John Roberts skeptical of appeals court ruling against Trump

Chief Justice John Roberts asked a series of questions suggesting he is skeptical of an appeals court decision earlier this year that found Trump did not have immunity. He also undercut a central argument raised by special counsel Jack Smith throughout the case.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that former presidents are immune from civil litigation. But Smith has argued that immunity shouldn’t be extended to criminal cases. In making that argument, Smith has called attention to what he has described as “safeguards,” including the need for a grand jury to bring charges and institutional norms within the Justice Department that would counsel against political prosecutions.

Roberts seemed concerned with that position. And that's a good sign for Trump.

“You know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment and reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in the some cases,” he said.

Kavanaugh asks if a "creative prosecutor" could go after former presidents with the same charges Trump faces

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked the special counsel’s lawyer whether a “creative prosecutor” could have charged previous presidents with the same charges Trump is facing in the federal election subversion case.

“The problem is the vague statute,” Kavanaugh said, citing the obstruction and conspiracy to defraud the United States charges that Trump is facing in this case.

The charges, Kavanaugh said, “can be used against a lot of presidential activities, historically, with a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president.”

Oral arguments suggest that the Supreme Court may not totally resolve the Trump immunity case

The Supreme Court hearing so far is a mixed bag for both sides.

On the one hand, its seems clear that the court is unwilling to dismiss the case against Donald Trump outright, as he ostensibly is asking the justices to do, based on his sweeping theory of presidential immunity.

On the other hand, several justices appear skeptical of how the special counsel is framing the case.

It's possible they will render a ruling that could require several more months of lower court proceedings before the case against Trump can go to trial. That could put the possibility of a pre-election trial fully out of reach, raising the possibility that Trump will be reelected and make the case against him go away.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-trump-immunity-04-25-24/index.html

If you're interested this link gives you live updates as they happen in the SCOTUS today....

Thanks. That was a great rundown.

This is a watershed decision. I hope they get it right. Alito and Thomas scare me on this one, but they seem to be asking the right questions. Won't count my chickens until the decision hatches though. Could set quite a dangerous precedent if it goes the wrong way.

Along Alito's line of questioning, if they decide in favor of Trump, what would theoretically prevent Biden from sending ST6 to take out his current opponent?

Trump’s Lawyer Tries to Convince a Stunned Sotomayor: President Has Immunity to Order Assassinations of Rivals
Colby HallApr 25th, 2024, 10:37 am
1738 comments


Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Trump lawyer John Sauer had a stunning exchange over whether presidential immunity covers the assassination of political rivals during Thursday’s Supreme Court hearing.

Sauer had previously argued that under certain circumstances, a president could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival and not face prosecution, at an appeal hearing on former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.

This topic came up again during the Supreme Court hearing:


SOTOMAYOR: Now I think. What? And then your, answer, below, I’m going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it, if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or order someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts that for which he can get immunity?

Sauer: It would depend on the hypothetical. What we can see that could well be an official act.

SOTOMAYOR: He could. And why? Because he’s doing it for personal reasons. He’s not doing it. Like President Obama is alleged to have done it to protect the country from a terrorist. He’s doing it for personal gain. And isn’t that the nature of the allegations here, that he’s not doing them, doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility? He’s doing it for personal gain.

Sauer: I agree with that characterization of the indictment. And that confirms immunity, because the characterization is that there’s a series of official acts that were done for an honorable.

The exchange continued and turned to a discussion over the distinction between absolute and qualified immunity as it applies to the Executive Branch, or in particular, the President of the United States.

Trump has argued for absolute immunity as a defense against the several criminal indictments he is currently facing.



https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trum...unity-to-order-assassinations-of-rivals/

That's why I don't think their ruling will clear much up. I don't think they will agree with full immunity under any circumstances but at the same time I think their ruling will be murky enough not to set any clear boundaries.

It is an insult to the integrity of Justice to even have to consider this. The fact that this could delay the trial is preposterous.

We should just fast forward to the execution…

Even though I despise Trump and would love to see him placed in jail for the rest of his life, I don’t want every POTUS from here on out to be prosecuted by highly charged partisan prosecutors or any kind of zealot. After listening today, some of the discussion was mind boggling, but much, especially the latter bits were necessary IMO. And I’ve already accepted that we’ll be lucky if any of the more meaningful trials start or more importantly conclude before the election after SCOTUS refused to label him an insurrectionist and disqualify him from running in 24.

I just want the Trump era to come to an end and for Trump and company to pay a traitors price.

It's looking as though my scenario may play out......


I know it's only an opinion from a legal correspondent but it's the type of scenario I could see playing out.

You don't think the Supreme Court should decide when, where and how presidential immunity begins and ends? Uh... okay. Seems like there a lot of great reasons for the court to rule on this case. The fact that you're worried about delay says all there is to say. But keep in mind, the Trump legal team wanted them to hear the case in December, the court replied "no" with a one sentence unsigned ruling. So "the fact" is, it's not Trump delaying anything -- it's SCOTUS.

Just so long as we discuss facts.

Man, and then the lower courts will then come up with another decision or test, which will then assuredly be appealed again...

Kicking the can down the road would probably be the best possible scenario for trump at this time since it's obvious total blank immunity will never happen. But then those in the SCOTUS know this. For some reason I don't think they'll set the guidelines and parameters for what is allowed to qualify for immunity and what isn't. I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see it happening.

I'm with Bone on this one I am afraid ... I mean you had a nice redirect with the way you rephrased this (quoted above). But the 'fact' is Trump is seeking 'absolute immunity' .... and his motivation is clearly and unequivocably based on his own legal jeapardy. I'd say that arriving at this point is most definately embarrassing. just my perspective!

I certainly think they should. I just don't think they will at this point.

So it's "an insult to the integrity of Justice to even have to consider this"?

You do you, bro. 👌


But you and Pit bring up valid points. SCOTUS should take this as an opportunity to add some guidelines and parameters, but they won't because that would make too much sense.

And I have to agree with FATE. This is an historical case setting the precedent for every president to come from this day forward. Very few things could rise to this level of legality and precedent to establish if our nation will be closer to a democracy than a monarchy. Our forefathers fought to free us from a monarchy so the people could vote to govern themselves with purposeful checks and balances built in to prevent a president from ever turning into a monarchy style of governance. And to a great extent that's what this case is all about. So I think a final decision to set the parameters on presidential immunity go a very long way to help accomplish as well as establish that and the final say should come from no less than the highest court in the land.

Do I think the very notion of absolute immunity is worthy of any possibility or discussion? No I don't. But the overall big picture as that there has to be some parameters of when presidential immunity applies and when it doesn't.

From a different perspective, because of Trump, black and white guidelines on immunity is very worthwhile. But given that the case is where it is because of Trumps legal woes is embarrassing ... It really depends on whether you focus on why we are here or the positive that now clarity is needed maybe its a worthwhile endeavour.

From listening to most of the hearing I think it’s highly unlikely that Trump wins full immunity. His lawyer argued immunity only is in effect for official acts, not for private acts. When they went through some examples of personal acts it sure seemed like he was going to be able to be prosecuted under that standard.

I agree with those who think it will be kicked back down to the lower court. Another thing that came up was the idea of a president pardoning themselves. The lawyer for the special counsel said there is no immunity for presidents period but there are some things they have absolute power over and pardons was one of these things. Later the argument was made that presidents cannot pardon themselves. I really don’t remember the reasoning behind it but I’m quite sure if Trump were to be re-elected we would be having at least another case before the Supreme Court.

I have to say that there is now a need to rule on things people never thought needed to be ruled on before because nobody ever saw the possibility of a man like trump ever becoming president. Someone who more than pushes every standard of what was considered normalcy beyond their limits. I guess some may be able to see that as a good thing if they try hard enough.

Thanks P. I'm glad you brought that up. Yeah, that is a secondary, yet also very important question to answer. I think Gorsuch phrased it appropriately - and I'll botch it - but he said "We have never had to deal with that issue before, thank goodness."

You either have Law or you don't.

The basic principle of our Constitution is "nobody is above the law."

The Appeal Court made it clear. So, is it ok for a president to have his political opponents killed?

How about some common sense.

I will do me. Nobody is above the Law. Nixon challenge.

In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not necessarily immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office.

Ridiculous that the SCOTUS can’t come out and rule on the case at hand ……The former president doesn’t have total immunity in a criminal case. Which he doesn’t. This is what Trump lawyers were appealing for. They now aren’t even really considering trumps case. They are looking ahead and not the case at hand. Talk about a fixed court.

Spineless pukes who trump appointed.

I blame McConnell more than Trump. Not even necessarily expressing ire toward the justices, really just McConnell. Regardless of what you think of the justices themselves, he was the one that twisted and marred a Constitutional procedure, not once, but twice. I might even let it slide if he maintained consistency with both appointments, but he did it flat out hypocritically. He set a dangerous precedent and very slippery slope by manipulating a procedural loophole of sorts in a foundational document that is very hard to change. He doesn't care though because he'll be "out the door" one way or another when the real consequences of his actions begin to take hold.

I am actually one who prefers justices that are more originalist in their approach, meaning Roberts and Gorsuch, not Alito and Thomas, as I believe they have corrupted the notion. However, even those who were in favor of Gorsuch and ACB being nominated should be upset with McConnell. Why? Well, what happens if/when the Senate pulls a reverse McConnell and the Court ends up with 2 justices on the other end of the spectrum? I can only imagine the about-face in ideologies.

No doubt McConnell and the jellyfish Senate.

Just Clicking

Jump ahead to the election. Let's say that Trump wins. But if this gets done in Trumps favor, Biden steps in and calls on an Assassin to snufe out Trump. Now what? Biden orders a political rival killed and gets away with it because SCOTUS doesn't have the balls to stand up to Trump.

And of course, while he's at it, he orders the murder of Bobart, Green, Gaitz, McConnell and the rest of those in congress that oppose him and all the conservative SCOTUS folks as well..

Let me go a step further, Biden wins and orders the killing of every conservative in Congress and every conservative on SCOTUS and then he appoints all new liberal justices to SCOTUS. NOW WHAT?

And there isn't a thing they can do to him.

Republicans and Trump better be careful what they ask for.

Ya know if Biden were as corrupt as Trump---he might get away with it.

Just read in an article---"“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military … to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “That could well be an official act,” said Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer.

Words fail to capture just how outrageous this claim is, for a would-be president, no less."

Our country has fallen so far we have lawyers stating a President could use the military to assassinate a rival---with a straight face and BELIEVING that wouldn't be bad====DAMN- if you lied when I grew up in the 50s, you were a bad person----how we have progressed- that a former President hocks everything to the public, divorced multiple times, adultery is OK, and trying to steal and election /plus steal our most sensitive classified material AND HE is the best Republican for the most important job in our world-- WOW.

But what if they tie with the exact same amount of votes. And MTG declares a duel, they both shoot each other but neither one dies. Then they both claim immunity and decide to be co-presidents. Biden orders the death of all the conservatives in Congress and Trump orders the death of all the libs. And then, and then, and then Kamala cackles so hard that they both are covering their ears, and then they realize her cackle is really a death ray. But there's nothing they can do because once they die she will be president and she will have immunity too!

I can't figure out what would happen after that but it will be very, very scary! Orange Man bad!!

What happens if Trump and Biden tie in the Electoral ...
Brookings
https://www.brookings.edu › articles › what-happens-if-...
Oct 21, 2020 — If the Electoral College is tied, the president will be selected in the House, with each state having only one vote. Which party has the ...
People also ask
What happens with a tie in Electoral College?
What happens if the electoral vote is a tie? The House of Representatives makes the decision with each state having one vote. Representatives of at least two-thirds of the states must be present for the vote.



Since the house is republican held, I think it's safe to say that Trump would be the candidate they'd support to win.

If that were to happen, we are toast as a democracy.

There is one thing however, Biden would remain president for a couple of months, in that time, he could still have Republicans in the house and senate and yes, Trump killed.

and yes, Orange man BAD!

Now you're getting it.

Technically it is the newly elected House that votes. The exact composition is determined in November.

Wow, totally missed that. I think you are correct.. My bad. So if the house flips to Blue, Biden would probably win. Got it. Thanks

The absurdity of questioning an "official act" as president defies any sense of logic.

As president an "official act" could be the president decides to sell nuclear codes to a US adversary Kim Jong Un.

I mean him trump exchanged heart felt love letters.

And trump would claim immunity. Just brilliant. Bravo for SCOTUS.

You may wish to wait until they they judge on the case before casting judgement on their decision.

Jc

Dunno why people are tripping about this. Every time this SCOTUS has made a ruling, it came back to bite conservatives in the butt.

Please, justices. Give the dems another reason to show up to vote in mass like you did with abortion.

I do not think it should have gotten that far.

I'm still not sure why they even heard that case. But what makes it worse is all this bantering about what is official and what is not.

For me it's pretty simple. Obama order the killing of Bin Laden... That's gotta be official right? Trump ordered the killing of Bagdaddy (sp) and that's official right?

But if the President instigates a riot at the capital in an effort to change the outcome of an election, that's gotta NOT be an official act... RIGHT?

I watched this unfold on J6...I know what I witnessed with my own eyes.. All the spin in the world will NOT change it.

All the attempts by Republicans to spin this after having said that Trump did indeed do it, seem like amateur hour.. FOX News looks like the Hacks they are.

Oh gees and all the attempts to get people to believe it was ANTIFA or BLM, that's a joke right? The thousand or so people convicted, all BLM right?

These men and women in Blue were under fire from these domestic terrorists and now these people that are protecting Trump seem not to care about that at all... Party of law and order my ass.

Again, there isn't a reason for them to even have taken this up.

Mark Meadows asked the Supreme Court to recognize his 'just following orders' defense. A right-wing justice wasn't buying it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-meadows-asked-supreme-court-110001090.html

Reading the article ticked me off. So he isn’t even denying that what he did was criminal. He’s just a subordinate…..

If the best defense I had was “just following orders” in a criminal trial in the Army, I’d be locked up in Fort Leavenworth the same day.

I think that's probably missing the point - from Trump's perspective at least.

It's not about what's obvious to your eyes. You don't count because you would never vote for Trump. What this legal defense and process of appeals and outcries on social media is about is to create plausible deniability for Trump Supporter and Possible Trump Supporter. It's about Trump being a victim. It's about delay, deflect and make a lot of noise so people stop paying attention. It's about giving the right wing biased part of the mdeia circus the opportunity to create alternate realities and spin, spin, spin. And any legal delay, process, appeal - whatever ... it will all get used to exhaustion.

No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot.

Remember bro, both you from the military side and me, from the civil service side, actually have to follow the rules. The political higher-ups don't.

It’s not difficult to understand the difference between an official act tha does not have the element of personal gain associated with it and one that does. Taking out bin Ladin does not. Stealing an election does.