DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court rules US presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts

Tell me you drink the Koolaid without telling me you drink the Koolaid.

The amount of self-imposed ignorance it takes to parrot the narrative that Trump's current legal woes are because Biden is weaponizing DoJ is astounding. Did he not breaking campaign finance laws when he paid off a porn star? Did he not tell election officials to "find me 11k votes", and direct his VP to stop the lawful and correct transfer of power? Did he not illegally overstate the value of his properties in order to defraud loaners/investors? Did he not incorrectly/illegally keep Top Secret information at Mar-a-Lago and resist turning it over when it was requested?

As far as I've seen, there's never been any question of whether he did these things nor the legality of it. It's always been "iT's bIdEnS fAuLt!!"

He's just here to own the libs.

I actually think during the next debate, one of the questions should be to both candidates: What is your impression of Article II of the Constitution. I think the responses would be amusing from both.

Not saying this as a reference to Memphis, but that is pretty much the unanimous platform of the far right currently.

Eh. He wasn't going to go to jail anyway. The important part is the 34 guilty verdicts still stand.

Honest question... why would the hush money verdict be at all impacted by the Supreme Court ruling. Hush money paid to a porn actress with campaign funds... there's nothing "official" about any of those acts.

Just the tip of the iceberg bro. It’s a brave new world where the POTUS is king, Long live the King. Currently Biden.

I have a better question. If Trump is immune for the acts committed on Jan 6th, why is he not still the POTUS?

I do think they cleared the water. They were asked a question:


This question has been clarified. The answer is what it should have been, and in essence, has been.

While Trump is claiming total immunity, the other side is claiming all sorts of wrong things as well, such as being able to send in the SEALS to quash political rivals. This is part of the political spin and means nothing in regards to everything else.

I also do not think this ruling kicked the can (I don't think you meant to say licked) down the road. They answered a specific question specifically. Neither side was willing to add details of charges to their briefs, not did either side put more detail into the question asked. They gave the inferior courts guidance on cases that are still open and being litigated. No doubt this will change either how they are litigated or will close them depending on how the briefs and arguments go in the next phase. SCOTUS is usually very cautious of taking a case that isn't ripe with a full record, and this is the current state of affairs with Trump.

Plus he wasn't POTUS at that point. If the ruling could be that far reaching, let me hereby announce my candidacy for Presidency where I'm going to use campaign funds to turf your lawn. Might look pretty dumb doing that in a Tesla, but still...

The sad part is that, even if I did that, I still might have you vote for me over the two other choices.

I'd vote for you over the other two. though I live in MD so I already know how that will go with electoral votes. Sorry.

I always knew you had it out for me...

Well what if Biden decided that Trump was such a risk for the USA that eliminating him was the only answer? Then he takes out Scotus and installs those that are "on his side"?

I mean this could go on forever...

Personally, I think SCOTUS Screwed the pooch on this one. They attempted to have it both ways and ended up with something that could cause upheaval for years to come.

Just to be clear about something. I'm not advocating for Biden to do what I stated. I'd have to turn on him if he did that.

We all know Biden wouldn’t do it. But we also know who would.

The muddy water is going to be what is considered Official vs Unofficial. That's where all the fighting is going to be.

Example, Trump did all these things that he has been convicted of Prior to becoming President. Yet he's already trying to get the convictions thrown out. So which is it.

Scotus eliminated clear lines between the two. Which is exacly why I feel SCOTUS screwed the pooch on this..

You cannot be serious if you think that is about democracy or good for the republic.

The people pulling Biden's strings? Biden appears to not be able to much more than drool on himself without someone helping.

Start with Article II.

jc

Now that president have immunity, Biden can finally reveal he's a sith lord.

For his official acts. It isn't out of the question that President Biden might have been charged for his handling of the border. Now he can't.

We were entering a phase of political persecution. This ruling takes that off the table.

It should never have been a question that Biden could be charged criminally for the handling of the border. No matter how incompetent youthink it has been. Incompetence is not illegal.

The examples given of what a president can now do without repercussions also don't fly. All the ones that I have seen are hyperbole and are note part of a president's core responsibility. I have yet to see (and cannot come up with an example myself) of anything a president could do that would be part of their core responsibility that I would consider criminal and deserving of prosecutution that would now be allowed.


The risk is the perversion of the ruling. Doing things that are clearly not part of the president's core responsibilities but getting away with it because of this ruling is the risk. Trump is already trying this.

Ya know Frank, had you read the entire post instead of responding in this manner, you would have seen that I DON'T think it's good for anything or anyone.

The problem I have is that I don't think that Trump will do what's best for Democracy or the republic. he's shown no willingness to do the Right Thing. EVER



Now I recognize you don't agree with that statement, so I'll just let his actions speak for themselves.

For instance, Everything and every investigation proves he lost the election in 2020. Even in private he's conceded he lost. But still he goes out and lies about it all the time, and then he starts a riot to try to overturn an election.

That's clearly a person that looks out for himself and not for the good of the democracy and Republic.

Again, I know you don't want to believe that. That is your choice.

Looking out from himself is a very far cry from the idea he is such a threat he has to be taken out.

Every politician is looking out for themselves. That's how they get wealthy while working as a "public servant".

SCOTUS clarified what was already in COTUS.

No they didn’t they muddied the waters. Clarification would have had the ruling read as “The president does not have total immunity to high crimes and misdemeanors.” Long live the king.

Straight from the horses mouth


Project 2025 Leader Promises 'Second American Revolution'
Published Jul 03, 2024 at 8:05 AM EDT



By Flynn Nicholls
FOLLOW
13
The leader of right-wing think tank The Heritage Foundation says the Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling could bolster a second American revolution, as defined by his group's Project 2025 plan.

Appearing on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast, foundation president Kevin Roberts outlined how the ruling might help transform the federal government with conservative policy proposals, should Donald Trump win the White House in November and adopt Project 2025.


He said the Supreme Court's judgment on Monday, that presidents are immune from prosecution for "official acts, will free them up to introduce policy without having to "triple guess, every decision they're making in their official capacity."

"In spite of all this nonsense from the left, we are going to win. We're in the process of taking this country back," Roberts said. "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless, if the left allows it to be."


Roberts' Project 2025 vision of a bloodless revolution includes an action plan to dismantle what he has described as "the deep state", by removing civil service employment protections for all federal employees with "policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating" in their job titles.

Removing the employment protections, which have been in place for 135 years, would make the civil servants at all levels of the federal government easier to fire and replace with Republican loyalists.


After replacing the civil service, the Project then proposes the implementation of several more right-wing policies.


These include eliminating the Department of Education, reducing the scope of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, rolling back renewable-energy programs to create a regulatory environment that favors the fossil fuel industry, limiting mail-order abortion pills, and removing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) hiring policies from federal programs.


Most importantly, in relation to the Supreme Court ruling, Project 2025 wants to consolidate executive power by reducing the independence of federal agencies and increasing presidential control over policy implementation.

Project 2025 has been criticized that it goes against democratic principles and could lead to a dictatorship because of its proposals to centralize power.


Roberts appeared on the War Room podcast on Tuesday, during its first broadcast without host Steve Bannon, who on Monday reported to federal prison in Connecticut to serve a four-month sentence for defying a congressional subpoena.

Bannon is a staunch advocate for Project 2025, having previously said that he envisions the Make America Great Again movement "will govern the United States for 50 years."

In the episode, hosted by former congressman Chris Brat, Roberts said listeners ought to be encouraged by Monday's Supreme Court ruling.


"We're in the process of taking this country back," he said. "No one in the audience should be despairing."

Roberts referred listeners to Alexander Hamilton's 1788 essay Federalist No. 70, which speaks of the need for a "vigorous executive."

"Put politics off to the side, any president having to second guess, triple guess, every decision they're making in their official capacity—you couldn't have the republic that you just described," he said.

The War Room podcast broadcasts four hours per day, five days per week, on right-wing cable channel Real America's voice.


A 2023 study which analyzed unsubstantiated and false claims in major political podcasts found War Room to be one of the top spreaders of misinformation, particularly in repeating the lie that widespread voter fraud caused Joe Biden to win the 2020 election, a claim which has been dismissed as baseless by a variety of judges, by the cybersecurity arm of the Homeland Security Department and by Trump's own Attorney General William Barr.

https://www.newsweek.com/project-2025-promises-second-revolution-1920506

Great news for me, a civil servant, to read.

Nobody on the Republican side is concerned about this?

This is the kind of crap that ticks me off with conservatives and they’re gaslighting.

Remember when conservatives and fence riders were going “omfg the libs are overreacting! Nobody is coming for women’s rights!!”

And then they overturned Roe, coming for women’s rights.

Even in this very thread, we got posters claiming liberals are overreacting to this ruling. yet here we go with the heritage foundation and they’re nonsense.

How come conservatives and fence riders aren’t telling the other conservatives not to over react? How come they aren’t telling the heritage foundation and MAGA not to overreact?

Why? Cause they know it’s not an overreaction. These are the kinds of rulings they want, because it absolutely gives them political cover to do some BS they always dreamed about.

Not sure how bumbling the border would equate to a presidential candidate paying off a porn star with campaign funds, a sitting president calling Georgia asking them to find votes (how is that an official act?), or a civilian, ex-president holding onto classified documents and refusing to return them.

Go tell judge Cannon that, who continues to get away with obstruction regarding said classified documents case. You know she’s gonna use this ruling to continue obstructing the case.

People (general statement) keep claiming it won’t effect <insert case> until it actually does. Then everybody just shrugs their shoulders like they never knew it could happen. Smh.

Gopers have a road map now. The SCOTUS gave it them on a silver platter. Official acts can be argued over and over in court. Then appealed and appealed again and again in a never ending cycle, costing US millions in tax dollars. TY SCOTUS.

Something is obviously going on with her. At best, she is trying to defer the ruling until after the election so she can figure out what version of Trump she's dealing with when the trial may or may not begin. It'll stay again waiting for a SCOTUS decision when he pardons himself.

All she has to do is delay it until the election. If trump wins, she can delay the case indefinitely because now he’s essentially a sitting president. At that point, trump doesn’t even have to worry about the pardon because he’s safe for the next 4 years and will die soon after leaving office due to old age.

Roe overturned

This immunity ruling

The Supreme Court literally criminalizing homelessness

The BS Jan 6 ruling letting the rioters off the hook

The recent ruling stating that the government doesn’t have regulatory powers

Overturning the ban on bump stocks

If this is the kind of country conservatives want, then to hell with my combat PTSD symptoms, I’ve already talked to my wife about buying firearms and hitting the range on the regular. This is the kind of BS that makes me feel less safe in my own damn country. Not illegals,not the gays, not some random black dude or some Muslim.

This BS they got going on right now is what makes me wanna strap up like Rambo for protection.

And y’all know what else is coming?

For the last few years, guess what these incel right wingers are coming for? Divorce. No fault divorce to be exact.

Cause how dare the government allow people to get away from their abusers.

In their approval process Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are all on tape stating that "no one is above the law not even the president."

So much for honesty. Forget three branches of government when two are allies.

Disgusting. On top of that they dragged their feet for 7 months while the voters awaited the trial for trump's indictments.

You've stated pretty much what I've been saying all along. The president has ALWAYS had presidential immunity for official acts. Nothing in their ruling cleared up what an official act verses an unofficial act is or means. Instead they kicked the can on that down the road to the lower courts.

As its always been. The border is within the purview of official presidential acts.


Using campaign funds to pay off a porn star, defying a subpoena by refusing to turn over documents for months after you're no longer president and asking a state official to find you enough votes to change the results that you won that state in the election aren't.

You're still drinking the kool-aid.

Which brings up the big question…Why did they take up the case to begin with?

I'm not sure why you would take up a case when your ruling neither changes nor clarifies anything any further than it had already existed. Their opinion may as well have read.... "Same as it ever was."

Additionally, it was also mentioned that, when determining official vs unofficial acts, the president's motives can't be questioned.

There is so much to unpack here, and the extra noise is making it really difficult to understand the actual impact of the ruling. I can understand why a president would need some form of immunity in order to do his job (particularly the difficult days), but this ruling is being handed down at a time when a former president and candidate has been charged in relation to the disruption of the democratic transfer of power. Additionally, this same person has said that he would seek revenge on his political opponents. One needs a staggering amount of naivety to not see the connection here.

I think "willful blindness" is the operative term.