The issue of presidential immunity is being tested in the DC political Lawfare case against President Donald Trump.
As the Jack Smith prosecution claims President Trump tried to “overturn the results of the 2020 election,” the issue of presidential actions intended to secure & protect the legitimacy of election outcomes becomes a focus.
The legal counsel for President Trump has stated any action by the president to ensure election security falls within official acts, and is therefore subject to immunity from prosecution. The special counsel claims the act of reviewing an election outcome is a private benefit to the president and not part of presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court is now involved in determining whether the President of the United States has immunity from prosecution, or whether any/all future presidents can be prosecuted for their action while in office. Inside the debate is the larger question of whether the “bureaucratic state” controls the president, or whether the office of the president controls the executive branch bureaucratic state.
The leftists and communists agree with former AG Bill Barr, that institutions run the government, and the office of the President is simply a figurehead within it. In essence, the DC institutions are omnipotent and powerful, and the president is simply occupying space the deep state allows. That’s the core ramification within the immunity argument.
In this video, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asks several questions about limiting the immunity of the president and some of the ramifications that will surface for future presidents. WATCH:
Interestingly, at 2:30 of the video, Justice Kavanaugh notes the current Lawfare approach – crowdsourcing for prosecution angles with the DOJ, which was the same Lawfare approach used by the beach friends to attack Kavanaugh’s nomination. Judge Kavanaugh uses that hidden reference point – very subtlety – but its inclusion shows that he knows exactly what is taking place here.
I also like the part where the DOJ argues President Obama is not guilty of murder, via drone strike, because the type of murder created by Obama in that situation was “lawful murder.” Collateral killing via drone strike is considered by the DOJ to be: the lawful murder of another person with malice of forethought and specific intent to kill.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong with the DC administrative Deep State having the power to determine what is “lawful conduct” vs “unlawful conduct” by their political opposition? Oh wait, it’s done by DOJ statutory interpretation, lolol… now I feel better. Good grief, can people not see where this ends.
That said, here’s what the SCOTUS is going to do… I’m 95% certain of this.
[Oh, and Steve Bannon’s insufferable legal analysis, by Mike Davis, is GASLIGHTING. Davis is an idiot and totally dishonest legal mind (wants to be AG – God, help us), who only tells MAGA what they want to hear; so, I would suggest ignoring his claim that SCOTUS will rule support for Trump with absolute immunity. Mike Davis is totally wrong.]
The Supreme Court is not going to get into the debate of what action is “immune” vs what action is “not immune”; the court simply hates that stuff.
This unwillingness to get into the granular debate of statutory interpretation is the same reason why the court will not look at what the executive branch defines as “classified documents” vs “non-classified” documents. Once they open that pandora’s box, there would be a bazillion appeals for a SCOTUS writ on the baseline of illegitimately denied FOIA requests. They ain’t going to touch it. Same applies here.
The Supreme Court is going to send this back to the lower DC court, and tell them to hash out the issue of “private interest” acts vs “official” acts. This is the core of the originating issue.
Was President Trump ensuring the integrity of an election outcome he considered sketchy (official act), or was President Trump trying to overturn the election by ensuring election integrity (private interest act).
That’s the question that SCOTUS is going to tell the lower court to battle out, and then the SCOTUS will weigh in if needed. The Supreme Court is going to send this case back down to the lower court for definitions of “official act” -vs- “private interest act” before they will touch the immunity issue.
Here’s the full oral argument hearing at the Supreme Court:
Sundance is 100% correct about Mike Davis. All he does is fund raise on conservative media for himself and his organization, the Article III Project. He talks real tough, but he is not a true Trump supporter.
No, hes wrong here, because I watched the full show, yes he is GIDDY, because in essence this ruling will remand it back to the lower court, WHICH IS WHAT Mike said !! And then when Trump wins, his AG will drop the case without prejudice. So, hes NOT LISTENING in full but watching SNAP SHOTS or CLIPS. To remand it back 5-4 or 6-3 is the TRUMP WIN hes speaking about.
Yes, Ronald. Agree. Mike Davis has never said SCOTUS would ever attempt to make the not- so- fine distinction between official acts, and private acts.
Gorsuch, himself, noted that the Court was undertaking the creation of a rule “for the ages.” The inference from that comment is clearly that the case will, when complete in District Court and Appeals Court, return to SCOTUS for final adjudication.
When SCOTUS accepts certiorari, that means it will ultimately make final decisions. Wild Ladies Chutkan and Pan will be able to post their rulings, but case absolutely will return to SCOTUS..
Mike Davis is absolutely right!
In my view, it’s unconstitutional for judiciary to determine where a president’s authority begins and ends.
The distinction between official presidential action and non-official action is simple:(1) The President acts in his capacity as president whenever he acts in the name of the United States. Granted, that is broad, but it is meant to be broad.
Clearly, when POTUS is at home with family, he is not acting in the name of the United States, nor is he acting in the name of the United States if a lady in the Oval Office were to accuse him of an act of sexual harassment, or if he punched s.o. in the hallway. Clearly, no defense to such charges could be rebutted by an immunity claim of acting in the name of the United States. Let’s say the harassment is what some call “inappropriate hugging” (it’s nuts I know!), well, no claim regarding presidential action taken in the name of the United States could ever be presented against such a charge.
SCOTUS also questioned whether Trump’s involvement contacting state officials and legislatures post election 2020 was an example of presidential action or not. IT CLEARLY WAS BECAUSE, A PART FROM BEING A CANDIDATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS STILL POTUS (something many continue to deny) and possessed all the same awesome powers he had before running for a second term. AND he certainly used those powers by acting in the name of the United States and in the name of its constitution to correct illegal practices in state elections while urging them to do their jobs and to fulfill their constitutional roles.
There is no doubt that all such election officials knew that they were engaging with the ultimate enforcer of federal election law, just as Trump reminded Raffensperger in that phone call that he could be in legal jeopardy if he wasn’t transparent in his capacity as Secretary of State, all while Trump recited every election violation that Georgia had committed. Raffensperger knew he was dealing with the Chief Executive of the United States, and Trump never hid that fact,i.e., one way or another, Raffensperger knew Trump was going to take action in the name of the United States and election fairness.
SCOTUS has no role in defining appropriate actions of the President: that is delegated to Congress in their power to impeach, try, convict, and remove. Only after removal by Congress, would a President be subject to criminal prosecution. Therefore SCOTUS should not attempt to define limits or a “test” of Presidential immunity.
They won’t define acts of the President until a judgement is made by an inferior court, as to whether or not a President was acting with the constitutional powers accorded to his office. SCOTUS will then make a determination if that particularly act was whithin the constitutional powers or not.
Then they will do it again if another case comes up. etc. etc.
Congress acts as if the Senate did convict PDJT.
They did not.
Pretending again – on steroids.
Agree. I watch Bannon consistently everyday and I watched that day when Davis was at the Supreme Court. This is what he said.
The guy clerked for Justice Gorsuch. I’m sorry, I like him and he fights for constitutional judicial right and Trump.
For all of you who doubt Sundance, here’s the TRUE story on BS artist Mike Davis, a DeSantis supporter, by none other than Sundance, himself: “The Big Ugly Surfaces in The Story of Mike Davis and Harmeet Dhillon, Contrast Against the Backdrop of GOPe Maneuvers in California”, July 6, 2023 | Sundance
Don’t assume a DeSantis supporter is evil… I was one a year ago. I just assumed Trump was down for the count and I looked elsewhere. No Trump-hating in mind anywhere in me.
Buddy, you were evil, by supporting the FILTHY FRAUD.
That’s a “YOU” problem for supporting a Deceiver that you failed to Vet.
Then you woke up, paid attention and now you are not evil. Welcome back.
You old DeSantis Supporters don’t get off that easy. You caused a lot of problems supporting that Dull Tool of the Establishment. Glad you are on the side of Good now.
And Bannon didn’t banish him after that, which I don’t understand, and didn’t like.
WITH prejudice
I take Mike Davis comments about being interim AG tongue & cheek as to irritate the liberals/media. He is articulating the fraud, conspiracy, hypocrisy, and other republic ending legal tactics the uniparty are using against DJT across many media outlets. The ability to use truth as a profitable business model is a sad state of our current environment but I’m optimistic that more and more people are drawn to it.
WRONG
Absolutely incredible. This breakdown by H. A. Goodman is entertaining: the first 5 min are awesome:
https://www.youtube.com/live/w04SEL7qPJs?si=d2Igd0V4jDdCUAM2
“The special counsel claims the act of reviewing an election outcome is a private benefit to the president and not part of presidential immunity.”
Only if the president is running for a 2nd term, and only if the review concludes he won.
A review could also conclude his opponent won, but that won’t happen if the review isn’t done.
Wanna be sure of who won the election with apparent irregularities? Do a review.
Which administration is responsible for conducting the review? The incumbent.
Anyone who claims President Trump’s actions to investigate or prod State officials to investigate election fraud were “personal” are flatly incorrect.
I should have added, it’s hardly a personal benefit when he donates his salary, and it isn’t his choice where his security detail chooses to bunk.
I listened to Mike Davis bloviating to Bannon about the Supremes doing right by President Trump? Isn’t this the same Mike Davis who attempted to screw over Trump in California until Miz Loomer outted him?
I sure as hell don’t trust his fawning bs.
Bannon references Davis as a contender for President Trump’s attorney general.
PUH–LEEZE.
He didn’t say doing right by Trump it is for the presidency. The guy is a legal mind. That is why he says it is such an important case. Nothing to do with Trump if you pay attention though the decision obviously is good for Trump.
Chickenchits! Supreme Court sure!
Personnel and Official, I was elected and I moved out of my personnel house to live officially in the peoples house? Point being it is all official and personnel being the President of the USA or any country for that matter.
Lets see we have five presidents still living and they all committed some nefarious act when they were president. Plus we should never ever tolerate nefarious act from the office of the President again. Its looking more and more like we need a Constitutional Convention to stop the pigs from ruining our country. They need more restrictions put on them, with hefty penalties. That are actually enforced.
All living past presidents are ” lawyering up ” as we speak….ain’t these interesting times!
Please study the Article V Convention of States by reading the analysis by brilliant minds such as James Madison, John Jay, Phyllis Schlafly, Antonin Scalia and in our present time Robert Brown, to be fully informed about the dangers inherent in calling for a Constitutional Convention. If our Constitution is so lightly regarded and shredded now, why do you think “more restrictions” will magically cause people to enforce or adhere to an altered document. What the Convention of States minions promise you is not what the actual text outlines. The state of Nevada rescinded their Article V application in 2017. In the archives of the legislature in regard to the revision, it is written, “we were induced by fraud” to believe this is a safe process, now that we are fully informed, we want nothing to do with it. Just weeks ago, the state of NY rescinded ALL applications to call for an Article V Convention going back to the 1800’s. People are coming around to understand the harsh reality of opening our genius founding document to untold mischief.
I have read all of those, and completely agree!
Remember … It happened before, in the case of the very first Constitutional Convention! It was called as a convention to AMEND THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, as specified in the terms of the AoC. But it was hijacked by about 30% of the convention, by the proponents of a stronger central/national gov’t… The aristocrats of the group, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, etc., later known as the writers of the Federalist side of the Federalist Papers.
So … It CAN HAPPEN because it HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.
If I recall correctly, what SD expects SCOTUS to do is what Davis told Bannon’s audience after the oral arguments.
Exactly what if recall. Only difference is that Davis thought it was positive and SD thought it was negative. Thank you for confirming what I heard.
If a President does not have immunity “of official duties”…
How can judges, police, and others enjoy such immunity?
Goose – Gander?
This whole thing is nothing but “election interference”!
When do the RICO charges drop for Smith, Joetato, Garland, et al?
Coffee & COVID substack, Jeff Childers – has a short but inclusive section detailing immunity aspects.
Police officers and assorted bureaucrats have Qualified Immunity. Having gotten the lecture from lawyers about that, it is exceedingly qualified. It also applies only to civil law. What we are talking about in the Trump cases is a mix of civil law and criminal law with the specific Supreme Court case being about the criminal law case. It is entirely judge made law. What judges and prosecutors have is absolute immunity. They cannot be sued or prosecuted about anything they do officially. This is also judge made law.
Alternate scenario. Existing president not running for re-election challenges several states for fraud. how is that different from a current president running for re-election. Fraud is Fraud.
Mike Davis never said Trump would get absolute immunity. I like Mike Davis. Just because he has a different opinion doesn’t make him an idiot.
On this site, there are those who always bash. Don’t bother with it.
Agree completely. No one can pass the purity test some throw out here.
Let’s do this Mike Davis or Garland or Holder?
Third branch is not only afraid they are influenced.
If it is sent back to the lower courts, you can expect the Marxist judges to rule that most of the charges are personal acts. Of course, some of the charges will be ruled official acts to make it look fair. Liberal judges cannot even define a woman. They will rule in favor of their tribe. Any President should get blanket immunity to protect him from political persecution.
done with the threat of opening past and present To prosecution – rats nest!
Why does the Supreme Court trust the DC court to be truthful about official and private actions? They will just say Trump did everything for personal gain and not official gain! Doesn’t the Supreme Court know the DC courts are corrupt? Wait, election integrity is an official act not personal! Elections are suppose to be fair, not cheating! This is the question I wish the court to answer, do states have the right to cheat?
My understanding is that if the circuit court rules (as you know they will) that Trump’s actions are personal, then Trump can appeal that ruling to the Supremes and they will have to take it up again. I could be mistaken, but remanding to the circuit would not mean that their decision could not be appealed.
Good point. The SC wants the lower court to rule on the details so that the SC can take on the question of Presidential Immunity without having to answer all these other questions which are clouding up the main one.
But if the lower court says it was personal, President Trump can go back to the SC to try and show it was official business. Suppose the SC rules it was official business. Do they still have to rule on whether that gives the President immunity?
This is why these lawfare thugs get away with murder. We have too many laws, many vaguely worded and easily twisted if you have the motive, money and time to do that.
Because they don’t CARE. They just want to dodge.
what IS the difference between Official and Personal?
prediction: what IS a opinion and how does this impact the specificity if a voter? Meaning: how does a voter for a president EXPECT that person to ACT? Presidentiallly?
this is the condundrum…the paradox as you will.
for instance…in the “lightbringer” era, most voters did not support nor did they vote for Obama to DIRECT and to destroy human live with drones.
nor did voters who PUT BUSH in office agree and consent to a detention , incarceration. torture even of Muslims “accused” of being jihadis.
nor did voters who put Nixon or Kennedy into office expect that a draft enlistment mandate would occurr!
the patter who see it?
WE THE PEOPLE vote for people WE EXPECT to represent US, OUR VALUES..
btiu this never happens?
why?
because they don not care?
because we are too busy?
because we have lost sight of what is most importarnt? accountability? justice?
we do not live in a perfect world.
we the PEOPLE must accept that WE ARE RESPONSIBLE/
soley. totally.
Once this pain of consequence is fully metted, THE we learn to understand.
but not before the pain.
life does allow changes to happen without great pain.
emphasis on HUMAN LIFE. ?
the eternal life, promised by GOD, instructed by HIS ONLY SON, does not apply to living human being in this physical world. We are literally on our own.
make good choices
God Bless America
Biden persecuting Trump is personal, not official! He needs to be indicted!
All his bribes and influence-selling was personal.
Supreme Court needs to answer the question, do states have the right to conduct unlawful elections? Do states have the right to conduct elections to favor their candidate? Why is this comment always deleted?
.
FYI:
President Trump calls Robert F. Kennedy Jr. a Democrat plant.
please keep that in mind when you go back and read some of the comments gushing over Robert Kennedy Jr.
P.S. Ive been saving them and are available for viewing.
RFK IS a demorat plant. I’m on record here and in my day to day life saying the D’s will have a rallying cry to get behind RFK. they are simply using him as a splitter for the time being. At the “right time” the D’s will push for RFK to come back into the D fold and glean the potato-in-charge’s votes along with the center-left votes who have been duped into thinking RFK is a moderate.
💯 spot on. A more articulate and better concealed DeSantis.
This is not what I heard Mike Davis say. He said the same thing you are. So are almost all conservative legal voices I’ve heard.
Why not post at least one link then??
I haven’t seen one link with Davis saying what you all think he said posted here.
All you are doing is avowing anonymously that he said such and such. Not credible in the least.
You can find all of those clips at http://www.warroom.org
WATCH:
https://streamable.com/w3d6vr
In the meantime, thousands of illegal migrants pour across the former southern border while rabbit holes are dug and explored.
It keeps everyone looking elsewhere while the demons finalize their October Hell plans.
Courts not qualified to decide either issue. President is chief magistrate not them!
Coup culprit
Obiden is sponsoring an invasion and open treason against the constitution and the people and we get nothing.
Oh yeah-wanting only the DOJ’s approval on a Presidential action to guarantee immunity is sure to power up more of the unelected tyrants.
These people are truly insane.
Jack Zhitt is either ignoring or forgetting the interests of half the voters here. So are the black robed cowards.
He is not authorized to be a special prosecutor to begin with.
You know who already has absolute immunity. Judges, including the Supreme Court. I have not found any articles even mentioning this.
Outstanding analysis, Sundance. Thank you.
SD, please allow me to humbly request that you and M.D. resolve the dispute between you two.
Both of you are able to do much to advance Liberty and defeat the Marxists.
You know well “what time it is”.
As Ben Franklin said, we need to “hang together”.
I will figure out how to communicate this same request to M.D. for his part.
Thank you for all you do.
We are all wondering why our official elected people up there in snooty DC are not demanding just elections while they all know it’s happening. I mean the cheating.
Because it all helps their private lives ($$$) instead of us, the citizens ( official).
As if any gubmint entity can ascertain a President’s motive for any act.
The question is only is it an official act within the scope of Presidential duties or not?
On a side note… I’ve noticed that all of the people involved in this round of legal persecution are themselves shielded by immunity. They’re all entitled to immunity, as President, Trump is not.
OMG! How far we have fallen. This colloquy between Justice Kavanaugh and the lisping DEI SG is improper.
It is nothing more than rank political speculation pretending to rise to a discussion of the law.
I have attended many Court oral arguments. This colloquy is the rankest imitation of what one ought to be and once was.
with the exception of Justice Marshall’s ventures of thought. The political advocacy injected in this argument manifests the ignorant error of engaging hypotheticals into questioning of the advocates.
WE ARE LOST!
Immunity has always struck me as the wrong way to go about this. The president does not enjoy blanket immunity, and a half-second’s thought about what that precedent would mean should send any lover of liberty into fits of apoplexy.
They should be litigating this on its merits. Instead, they’re bypassing the factual bankruptcy of the state’s case and trying to rest on a defense that does not, and should not exist. And they will lose.
“Was President Trump ensuring the integrity of an election outcome he considered sketchy (official act), or was President Trump trying to overturn the election by ensuring election integrity (private interest act).”
isn’t that what impeachment is for?
Mike Davis typically goads liberals about being interim AG in the Trump Adm. He may be full of it, but where are the heavy hitting lawyers out in support of Trump?
Bannon I have learned who I listen to everyday is mostly not exposing bad news which is most state legislatures are full of rinos (and will remain by pre-loading votes in local elections in collusion with Democrats), and therefore local success with regard to MAGA will be/is a struggle. He rarely mentions the difficulty, maintaining pom poms for a reason. I remember him late at night 2020 election, when the vote stopped in Penn. and the pollster on the show explained what was happening, that this would go back to the legislatures. Bannon said, “we’ve got this”. Meaning the legislatures in the contested areas were controlled by Republicans. The Republicans turned out the be the blockers or did nothing. I am not sure at that time if he was bluffing or didn’t know.