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:
The police have qualified immunity but the president maybe not so?
Bizarro world
Congress and the DOJ has immunity too
Think closely on your comment and combine it with Sundance’s discussion of the Administrative Side of the Executive claiming their dominance over the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE (i.e. The President of the US).
The APPOINTED Heads of the Offices of the Administrative Side of the Executive Branch of the US Government actually serve at the PLEASURE OF CONGRESS, who in reality define the list of approved candidates and who confirm them into office. The same goes for the APPOINTED MEMBERS of the Judicial Branch of the US Government, which also has a near permanent professional side as well.
Add to the point above ALL the discussion here on CTH and Articles by Sundance of the GATE KEEPER, INTERFACE and CONTROL roles played by key Congressional Committees (e.g. Select INTEL, FINANCE, JUDICIAL, et al) v/v the Administrative Offices of the Executive Branch of the US Government. When combined with fraud involving down ballot FEDERAL elections, the stage is set for the DEEP PROFESSIONAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH STATE to be USED by the Puppet Masters to implement fascism by the Financial Elite. The kicker is that the Supreme Court can hide behind the separation of powers written into the US Constitution regarding the Roles of Congress so long as congress follows the rules …. thus as Sundance states … the current Justices WILL NOT hear cases involving implementation so long as the processes defined by the US CONSTITUTIONAL and LAW are followed.
As I have stated in my other commentaries:
Evidence of wrong doing does not exist in the eyes of the Current Supreme Court, because the the only questions this court will ever consider are PROCESS COMPLIANCE related questions.
Again as Sundance states all questions regarding implementation and wrong doing will be thrown back to the lower Courts where the case originated. Thus, a key element of Lawfare is to originate all their (if possible) cases in the court rooms and districts friendly to their cause. Even in cases like the documents case (where they may have initially misread Judge Cannon’s character), they can even ensnare a good judge with legal processes to delay an undesirable verdict.
That’s a pretty good assessment 👏.
Very well put
Doco great post !
My thoughts exactly congress
Congres has a $150M payoff slush fund. Lol
Chuck Schumer has absolute immunity(because of the Speech and Debate Clause and because he’s a Democrat) otherwise how could stand outside the Supreme Court in 2020 and threaten Gorsuch and Kavanaugh about Roe v Wade repeal without any consequences.
He only has immunity inside congress not outside! But, he has democrat immunity
Democrat judges will always rule that judges have absolute immunity while the President of the United States has none!
You can see how the system works very clearly!
Let them enforce their tyrannical “rulings” then.
With their big “judge army”
So we’re supposed to now just roll over to whatever Communist-trained judges say?
Biden DOJ Says Droning American Citizens Is Totally Fine Because Obama’s DOJ Said So
https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/25/biden-doj-says-droning-american-citizens-is-totally-fine-because-obamas-doj-said-so/
It’s okay to murder a US citizen denying due process according to the lefty pukes because that is how they want to get rid of every single infestation of MAGA belief.
Dreeben repeatedly relied on the idea of an Advice of Counsel defense being a safeguard from prosecution for Presidential Acts. When challenged about whether Presidents would just appoint rubber stampers, he pointed out the need for Srnate confirmation.
Now you see it . . .
Very, very DS friendly approach.
Not to mention, protecting Obama.
Dreeben was on the Mueller Special Counsel prosecution of President Trump. He was one of the 17 Angry Democrats from Brooklyn who tried to frame President Trump for a crime that never even happened.
Dreeben, among others, knew that the Russian Collusion Dossier was a hoax and that President Trump was innocent yet he wanted to indict President Trump for Obstruction of Justice for simply Tweeting that he was innocent…and Dreeben knew that President Trump was innocent.
On top of all this, Dreeben incredibly told the Supreme Court Justice’s yesterday that the safeguard for the President against a corrupt prosecution WAS THE INTEGRITY OF DOJ PROSECUTORS!
Thank you for raising this very relevant fact.
Isn’t it ironic.
I’m surprised that President Trump’s lawyers didn’t hit Dreeben over the head with a 500lb hammer with it????
I noticed Dreeben lied so much and no one challenged him on it!
Except Navarro who advised Trump is now in jail!
There is no end to the outright evil the trash in DC will use to crush all future Presidents with if SCOTUS doesn’t end this BS right here.
Due process was the DOJ processing the details thru their private sieve for The Obama administration after the fact. They could cover His ass by claiming a legal paper trail.
The DOJ is claiming the authority to exonerate through a private lens appointed by Obama Admin.
An argument can be made about awlaki, but there is no justification for killing his son. I remember reading about his emails to family here in the US pleading to come home. Instead his country killed him.
Pos!!
.
Obama’s “wingman”…
.
SCOTUS Agrees Presidents Do Have Immunity From Criminal Prosecutions, But To What Degree?
https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/26/scotus-agrees-presidents-do-have-immunity-from-criminal-prosecutions-but-to-what-degree-is-unclear/
You are 100% correct.
SCOTUS should not attempt to “test” Presidential immunity. It is the task of Congress to police Presidential behavior. Congress has the power to impeach, try, and remove the President. Only then can criminal prosecution of the President be allowed.
Yes, and although it strangely is never mentioned, PDJT was acquitted of the Jan 6 “insurrection” in his second impeachment. I don’t know why they haven’t brought up double jeopardy.
Double jeopardy is for criminal court proceedings.
Impeachment is solely for removal from office. Quasi administrative process.
Not necessarily!
5th Amendment
And they never mention that the trial was totally unconstitutional as Trump was already out of office and Chief Justice Roberts would not preside.
I could be wrong, but I believe this was presented in the case. Congress acquitted Trump for actions after the election. Congress is the check on presidential power.
I believe SCOTUS will use congressional authority to prosecute a president for something it deems illegal and will not allow future administrations to seek political revenge. The founders were aware of this possibility. SCOTUS doesn’t want to create a political persecution precedent nor end the separation of powers.
Sundance is usually correct, I just saw the arguments go a different way. The DOJ’s lawyer got hammered by the questioning and probably because his brief set him up.
If only SCOTUS had the courage…
Thank you very much for this analysis. Could you also answer two questions.1. What are the chances the lower courts will deem these as official acts? 2. Will this now go till after Election Day ?
On the other hand while we’re all distracted, Joe Biden, the most corrupt dishonest POTUS in modern history, systematically destroys the Republic with complete diplomatic immunity because he’s mentally unfit for trial but fit enough to be president. And we will kick this can down the road…..
If one could show that 0biden is doing his scorched earth policies for political gain, that could be enough to get that scum in front of congress for impeachment.
(edit: depending on the SCOTUS ruling….)
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).
This sounds like the lower court gets to decide what President Trump’s intentions were. If insuring election integrity would have solidified Biden’s win, would President Trump still have wanted the investigation into the sketchy things?
How can something like this even be proven?
At least five Justices are likely to sign on to a test to be used that does NOT include assessments of motive. Their questions reflected a strong concern about opening that door.
I was hoping for even sharper questions on the Obama droning and the President’s absolute immunity on troop movements points. If Obama knowingly sent Seal Team 6 yo their their deaths to shut them up and cover his crimes, is that motive relevant to immunity?
At what point does it become Treason?
Whatever SCOTUS decides, it is unlikely to be the last round on this.
More like first quarter.
I would think Roberts would have a strong incentive to get enough concessions from 5 Justices to come up with a majority opinion that offers real guidance. Otherwise, as Jonathan Turley and, I think , Julie Kelly, have predicted, it’s going to end up as a hot mess, from a constitutional law viewpoint.
Why didn’t anyone mention Obama’s crime of spying on a political opponent and putting into motion a process by which a coup could be done when that candidate won?
These crimes pale in comparison to anything Trump has actually done and we have proof of it all.
SCOTUS only hears arguments on the Issue Presented in the briefs / upon which certiorari was granted.
FWIW, I thought one of the Justices strayed pretty far afield when he said the Ford pardon of Nixon is viewed by the country as a having been a good thing.
Very tangential to the discussion of the — agreed upon by all sides — absolute immunity for exercise of the pardon power (*Bill Clinton and Marc Rich are very relieved to hear it), and Not Really Relevant.
What is “trying to overturn an election?” Trying to allow or force states to fully investigate the flagrant and blatant voting and vote counting irregularities in their states?
There are people who committed crimes but President Trump isn’t one of them.
Exactly! Elections have been contested for the past two hundred years! It’s a legal process and not a crime.
In a somewhat parallel situation, “Gov.” Katie Hobbs”(D), of course, was Secretary of State in Arizona during the election in 2022. The SoS in AZ has full jurisdiction regarding any and all election issues.
Curious that the obvious and copious irregularities in that election were bulldozed, and Hobbs was installed. To this day 9,000 ballots have not been counted. (Abe Hamadeh, R candidate for AG in 2022 supposedly lost by 208 votes.) That resulted in radical Chris Mayes being installed as AG.
Do you suppose Ms. Hobbs had Arizonans’ interest foremost in the 2022 selection?
One radio host here in Az calls Hobbs KKKKatie.
Well, there’s a difference in that Hobbs was in charge of counting the votes. President Trump didn’t get to count any votes. The Arizona Soros gang made sure to threaten anyone asking questions about 2020 or 2022.
This intentions argument is what I call sketchy. It makes the law purely subjective. This is what Sotomayor always brings up as some great idea and interpretation of the law. Like she really knows what is going on in Trump’s mind. She, in my opinion, is not intellectually equipped to be on the SC. She is the dumbest one there although that new one could actually be worse. Do these people have functioning brains? Kagan has a brain but she is clearly in contact with Obama and his scheming lawfare group that meets once a week. I would not be surprised if she attended or listened in via phone or something.
I enjoy listening to Mike Davis but he freely admits he is frequently wrong and the talk about AG is just for fun; he has said he has no way of ever being approved for that position. Julie Kelley is very smart but more measured in her take of things. She has attended every J6 trial and all of these court trials and she is very astute.
I leave the word sketchy for Sotomayor and the whole intentions argument…only women think this way. Notice none of the men talk about intention except to denigrate it. I am sorry, one woman on the court is a good idea but with 4 of these people there, 3 complete ideologues and one another sketchy person, it will always be a dumb water downed decision. Oh, well, I could count Roberts as sketchy also.
little flower481: Very much agree with your statement, esp. regarding (the) women.
This question is why the Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Fitzgerald was brilliant! The Court ruled that any official action even in the “OUTER PERIMETER” of the President’s duties was covered by absolute immunity.
Anything less equals NO IMMUNITY because it becomes a question for the judge and jury. That’s no immunity and allows the President to be prosecuted even in a state court putting him at the mercy of corrupt local officials like we have now!
The Court could also sidestep the issue by ruling that the subordinates of the Executive cannot investigate the Executive and that only Congress can initiate this kind of prosecution and then only following a successful conviction by 2/3 in the Senate via the impeachment route.
Agree with Sundance on Mike Davis. I started to notice things that made red flags go up for me with Davis almost a year ago.
I confess I thought Mike Davis was a solid authority, particularly regarding confidential documents.
Count me as fooled.
He is. Just don’t play follow the leader. The guy is a Trump supporter and has been right on almost everything with these legal procedures.
I don’t understand why Bannon has the clout he seems to have within the MAGA world. He’s telling us what will draw him an audience. Replies will likely demonstrate so.
I like Bannon. If nothing else, he is a loyal Trump supporters and he does have some interesting guests.
Steve B. is very informative, totally MAGA, and I am sure he knows a lot of inside baseball. He covers many stories that no one touches. An example, the Covid truckers strike in Canada wherein he was in direct contact and broadcasting live-by-live with Viva Frei, former citizen of Canada (reference him on Rumble).
Bull………..
Mike Davis pooped in his own mesh gears by defending Harmeet Dhillon when she was trying to change the electoral process in California during the 2022 elections. They are both snakes, but Bannon continues to tout Davis as the “highest legal authority” on War Room. Again, sickening.
Bannon conveniently kept Davis off his show for about 2-3 days until the new cycle on his disastrous defense of Harmeet Dhillon was out of the news. Bannon never held Davis to account for that action. That was too big of a misstep to overlook or sweep under the carpet. I’ve always viewed him differently since that exposure.
I’m starting to think that we would be lucky to have a total economic collapse forcing a political reset shifting the Overton back to the right and to the traditional center. Because these people are going to bring on a war that wipes us out or a violent political collapse.
It seems the Uniparty prefers a virtual or literal Armageddon. I guess they must all have tunnels to escape to.
Tunnels….hadn’t Americans dealt with persons hiding in tunnels before?
The same “Supreme Court” that concluded a President (Trump) has no standing in a Presidential election.
Or a STATE!
I wish I understood the “no standing” issue. Honestly it usually sounds more like an excuse than a firm principle.
Us to the Deep State: “You can’t do that!
The Deep State: Pirate.”
even if they punt its still a win for Trump as it creates a delay … the lawfare timing to interfere with the election gets derailed if there is a deplay …
Upcoming argument recap
Sundance,
There are upsides to this, and I think you may be too pessimistic in your predictions.
Upside: for the first time ever, we will have controlling case law that a former President may be criminally charged for private criminal actions, and there is no reason to believe a distinction will be drawn between criminal private acts in office and criminal private acts at other points in time.
That clear ruling will mean that Biden will not be able to object on grounds of presidential immunity for taking all those bribes while in office.
If Obama sold state secrets while in office, same – no immunity.
If Bill Clinton ordered a hit on Miss Mary while in office – he can be prosecuted.
That is all upside.
Bear in mind, as one Nick Akerman is currently finding out, it seems ever more likely that during his four years in office, President Ttump tasked someone in a secure location to go through sixty plus years of “state secrets” and declassify every piece of dirty laundry that could be declassified without risking the country.
In other words, the evidence will be out for a to see.
It has been coming out for years.
And Tucker Carlson will shine the spotlights on it.
All to the upside in actually taking down the architects and key flunkies of the Administrative State.
Nick Ackerman — who is really toast?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/09/donald-trump-fraud-trial-watergate-prosecutor-toast
Welcome to the the Who Has Been Swimming Without Their Shorts on Nick Akerman, CIA flunky. You Are Our Winner of the Week.
#WeHaveItAll includes everything since at least 1947.
Who will see it? (no one watching msccp)
Who will care? (no one watching msccp)
Who will try the cases if even brought? (the infested courts?)
President Trump has said that when he returns to office, he will have the people on his side to do the things he needs to do.
Schedule F would be only the start.
BTW, the Constitution only requires a Supreme Court. All others are optional.
The DC Circuit and the District Court for DC may well find their paychecks aren’t in the mail.
Have faith. The Trump team has thought this through.
“The DC Circuit and the District Court for DC may well find their paychecks aren’t in the mail.”
From your lips to God’s ears.
UMMM – the “cringe” question, “is the President immune from prosecution if he orders the assassination of an opponent” and Trump’s lawyer answering “probably YES”. I know there is impeachment and then prosecution but dang why give that crazy old man any ideas????
Potatus has thoughts?
News to me.
Subordinates? Have no immunity, arguably.
Who are you to as “crazy old man?” Biden or Trump?
I’m sure they have already considered that option and, after the latest revelations on JFK and RFK assassinations, have ruled it out!
We are on to them!!!
“Upside: for the first time ever, we will have controlling case law that a former President may be criminally charged for private criminal actions,”
I contend the above premise regarding Pres. Trump’s case. He was The President during the contesting of the certification before Congress. He was not a private citizen or former President at that time. The Smith prosecution is centered during the time when He was President.
In complete agreement of what SC does and Mike Davis.
However, I do feel like the lower court will probably rule “private” and it will wind up back at the SC again.
Davis is a 🐍 and always has been. That was pretty much concluded with the Harmett Dhillon/CA thing and cursing you for calling him out and embarrassing him for being a 🐍.
I think this is a giant can of CD worms for the deep state. Somehow there will have to be a determination if in fact PDJT had a legitimate reason to suspect fraud in the election process. There is massive fraud evidence that has never been brought to light.
Which is why Texas et al tried to bring the issue to SCOTUS to begin with, so yes, there is a legit reason – in my eyes anyways.
Trust No One.
Example: The US Supreme Court has been filled by POTUSs who have been chosen by the See I AY. No different from the members of Congress who are also chosen by the See I Ay. Furthermore Senator Mitch McConnel has been given the credit for Trump’s picks who we all knew were not the best the USA had to offer never mind the adoption of foreigners rather than American children in need of adopting.
The global “Foreigners First” agenda and if you complain you will be called antiforeign children after after all for some reason every one has been convinced the USA must pay for other people’s children 24/7.
The nation which bragged to have boostered their population with no less than 6 boosters is not reporting mass deaths as seen in the UK with the vaccinations.
The global Foreigners First agenda
“Please don’t make us fulfill the Constitutional duties we were appointed to act upon.”
~The Empty Robed Justices of the Supreme Court~
Justice Scalia could not be reached for comment.
😆 🤣 😂
Apropos
And so the persecution with no end continues…
“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”
~Matthew 5:10~
Yes, Bets
We surely miss the presence of Scalia and his legal prowess.
And isn’t it curious that Marxist women’s rights groups want Clarence Thomas to recuse from almost every case, because his wife, Ginny, has her own political views and activism.
Hypocrisy and stupidity are the marks of those women, sis.
No one ever calls them out to make them explain the obvious flaws in their strident opposition. They can’t, of course. Life is a buffet to them…they pick and choose to suit their purposes. Hysterics and obfuscation are the tools of their trade. Which are always the answers to those who challenge them.
You nailed it, Betsy.
All I see, COLiberty, are people who don’t realize what is going on here. Or maybe they do and are happy to play along with the deeply corrupt system which has taken the place of blind justice…or any righteous justice at all.
The moment the Court demurred from taking the case of our AG Paxton and other AGs after the fraudulent 2020 election saying there was no standing…that is to say no standing in challenging blatant vote engineering in other states in a national election where such fraud would affect the outcome for us all in every other state (as it indeed did)…I knew right then we could no longer rely on it to hold the sanctity of our Constitution and our Republic as its highest priority. It had become partisan and politicized. The mark of every despotic Banana Republic which ever existed.
To be fair, Justice Thomas (of course it was he) and (I thiiiiink) Justice Alito wanted to hear that case but were overruled.
The rest? Cowards or compromised?
Or afraid…
“Please don’t make us fulfill the Constitutional duties we were appointed to act upon.”
“We’ll never be invited to another DC cocktail party again if we do our job properly!”
Yes…the subtext.
Agree. When the Republic needed them, they turned their backs.
From what I have heard, Trump’s legal team has asked the SCOTUS to send it back to lock this up in the appeals court to sort that out for months before returning to the SCOTUS to lock it up for some more months. Using the system to run out the clock…
Just long enough for President Trump to get back into office and kick some a$$.
Well maybe I’m simple minded on this, but it seems that virtually anything a President does that benefits the country and is popular with his constituents would be of benefit to his/her reelection. The opposition could claim he is doing things that benefit him/her personally.
If President Trump demanded that Biden Electors not be certified, but his Electors be certified instead for certain states and he then became President, that would be overturning an election.. But, of course President Trump did not do that. He claimed there was significant evidence of fraud and corruption in certain states and those states should investigate that before certifying their Electors. That may or may not have been proven to benefit him if their investigations proved his assertion wrong.
JMO
“We are Lawfare!!
Bespoke Berian Prosecution/Persecution is Our Specialty!!
We will fabricate a skinsuit of felonious charges for the political opponent of our choice!!
Promised to fit or we will try, try…and try again!!
Our satisfaction guaranteed!!!”
President Trump’s personal benefit – getting himself back for 4 more years – would be to my benefit and millions of other voters as well. So how is that only personal?
I just want the truth to be effective and a fraudulent election is a total lie.
“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 totally wrong.”
I am listening to WarRoom less and less these days…he rightly booted Steve Cortes when he jumped ship to support DeSantis but Mike Davis was part of the whole plot in California, cooked up by Harmeet Dhillon, to split the delegates, and Bannon never called him out on it, at least not that I ever heard. And all of his promises of “100 seats for 100 years” in November 2022 turned out to be complete hope porn!
Welcome to the club on Bannon.
Turned him down after that to sporadically watching. And after the Mike Johnson thing, no more.
BTW, why don’t we hear much about his ‘case.’ Oh, yeah.
Silence is golden.
Don’t look there, squirrels.
But that is not exactly what Mike Davis claimed when interviewed on War Room while outside the Supreme Court…
https://patriots.win/p/17t1W6oq7Y/the-supreme-court-is-going-to-na/c
Agree. What Davis said the SC would do is exactly the same thing SD said they would do but Mike put a positive spin on it and SD put a negative spin on it.
I had questioned Bannon’s appeal after President Trump called him “Sloppy Steve.” Many here remain enamored of him, but I fail to see why.
I guess he can be entertaining, but I am so weary of the bread and circuses.
Once upon a time I was all in for DeSanctimonious.. that lasted about five minutes, right? I can admit when I’m wrong.
When it comes to MAGA, so few have stood the test of time.
then try watching and pay attention. He has great guests all the time that republicans and President Trump ought try to follow their advices.
I don’t see the S Ct walking away so completely as this. First, the DEFINITION of what is a private act and what is an official act is a legal issue. A trial court cannot possibly resolve the factual issue of whether an act was official or private unless it is first given a legal definintion of each.
Then the bigger issue is what to do when an issue is BOTH. A President protecting the integrity of a presidential election is clearly a public act and part of his presidential duties. The nature of that action as a part of the office is not transmogrified into a merely personal act just because the President was a candidate in that election.
I agree it will be sent back to the trial court for factual findings, but I believe the S Ct will send it back with clear definitions that DEFAULT TO public acts if there is even a hint of “officialness.”
In the end, what must be remembered throughout all of this is that the President is NOT merely a person. The President is FIRST a co-equal branch of government.
Here is one for you. If the President can be held liable for his election actions, can Nancy Pelosi be prosecuted and held personally liable for failing to call out the national guard on Jan 6? Can a member of the federal judiciary be personally prosecuted for a bad decision, like letting someone out on bail who subsequently commits another crime? Can a member of Congress be prosecuted for filing a motion objecting to presidential electors (the Democrats do it every time a Republican is elected President)?
Official Acts must be broadly defined as ANYTHING which could even remotely be considered performance of the duties of the office. No other way works. It is up to the S Ct to preserve our form of government. It is up to US to fix its flaws and corruption through the ballot box.
Justices – do your jobs.
Makes sense trapper. Elected officials must receive the maximum benefit of any doubt concerning whether their actions were official while in office. To allow otherwise would be to invite lawfare without end, which would degrade the very legitimacy of the constitutional system itself.
Should the Supreme Court remands the case, my question is whether it will offer guidance or let the lower court take first crack at making the legal distinction between official and private acts.
Trial courts are strictly fact-finding courts, applying the law as set forth in the constitution, statutes, and appellate court opinions. I can not see the S Ct sending it back to the trial court with a “guess what we are thinking” message as to what is included in public acts performed as part of official duties. Previous courst may have, perhaps, but not THIS court, a court that had no qualms about overturning Roe. When they send it back, it will be with clear guidance. In my humble opinion.
Retired Magistrate here: After the Bush v. Gore hanging chad case in 2000, the Supreme Court is not going to go anywhere near a case like this. I agree, the Supreme Court will kick it back to the lower court.
I listened to much of the arguments. The three Leftists are an embarrassment.
I listened to all of the arguments. The three Leftists are an embarrassment. 🤣😊
I listened to the entire argument, and while not a layer a couple of things really jumped out at me.
First – Depending on ones preferred outcome dictating when (now or later); time is of the
“essence”.
Second there was particular mention made of the pending J6 decision that is already destined to have a huge impact on this “persecution”. What was not mentioned, but maybe should have been since it too could have a huge impact, is the decision regarding the deep state’s power to pass what are basically laws outside the legislature since no particular legislation gives the DOJ et. all the power to “make the chief executive a mere figure head” as a matter of fact specific mention was made of IF the legislature had the legal authority to pass laws that required the President to do or not do specific things (whole co-equal argument).
Finally what really caught my attention and thus I will be surprised if it is not addressed in some form, was the question/comment from Judge Alito regarding protecting the President from malicious prosecution and the surprising answer by Smith’s representative that the “safeguard” is oaths and good intentions when the clear history is that that is Exactly what is happening.
We will see and Sundance’s predictions may stand the test of time but I think the decision will go a bit farther.
In reference to Alito’s question, “regarding protecting the President from malicious prosecution and the surprising answer by Smith’s representative (was) that the “safeguard” is oaths” I did a facepalm. To my surprise, Alito did not state the obvious that the President also takes the same type of oath. Is one oath more valid then another oath?
GREAT POINT – wish the attorney had said it but maybe one of the justices will in the decision.
So the advisor to the President (the AG) has immunity but his boss (The President of the United States) does not.
Hmmm……….
Perzactly.
“They” just make up stuff as “they” go.
Ain’t life great?
All are equal, but some are more equal.
…and Shuffles would still trip up the stairs if he had 4 legs (I’m surprised his horns aren’t showing….yet).
Cankles is still spouting that the 2016 election was stolen from her
What was stolen from her was her attempt to steal the election herself.
Too many people in Pennsylvania voted for Trump. It was more than she was prepared to deal using pre-prepared ‘absentee’ ballots.
“Too many people in Pennsylvania voted for Trump. It was more than she was prepared to deal using pre-prepared ‘absentee’ ballots.”
Which they summarily fixed for the 2018 and 2020 elections…
… and 2022 election.
I thought that the DOJ is under the Executive branch in government and answers to the president. The president is their boss, so this oral argument is moot isn’t it? Like someone else already said, the balance with the executive is Congress and their actions. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous as it is not even logical. Executive is above DOJ. They serve at the president’s pleasure.
The DOJ and the “Intelligence” Community have usurped the role of the President. We ARE HERE. Sundance NAILED that issue some time ago. So we see why we are having all these lawfare cases and upside down justice and lawlessness.
A crook was selected to be POTUS by the groups who now are the de facto rulers. Agree with Sundance, SCOTUS will probably play it safe and send it back. IMO, Their homes will not be burned down and their families will be safe.
SCOTUS does not fear us. Simply, practically, they do not have to.
Considering there wasn’t a war declared, one wonders if he could be indicted for murder?
In principle, isn’t a President’s power to pardon an acknowledgement of his absolute immunity? The point being that the Founder’s give that “Kingly” power to a President. The checks against a tyrannical President lie in the legislative act of impeachment, duly judged by the judiciary.
I like that point . And it goes directly back to the impeachment/conviction provisions in the Constitution.
The question that follows is can a President pardon himself or herself?
I have a question. What is the definition of “trying to overturn an election?” What constitutes the act of “overturning an election?” Where is that action defined in the Constitution or in the statutes?
And could that definition (whatever or wherever it exists) be applied to the officials of the States where vote counting was halted almost simultaneously or where chain of custody of ballots and vote counts was not followed?
To paraphrase. Just trust us, Garland would never overstep.
Agree 💯%
SCOTUS kicking it back down to the lower court.
It seems to be time to eliminate the blanket immunity for prosecutors.
Does anyone have a link to Mike Davis stating that SCOTUS will rule support for Trump with absolute immunity? Here is Mike Davis in his own words…
https://patriots.win/p/17t1W6oq7Y/the-supreme-court-is-going-to-na/c
Stryker – Agree with you. I listened to what was said by Mike, “narrowly rule.”
One would hope the obvious:
Scotus ‘should act‘ and declare President 45 was acting in an official capacity
The facts of the case are not before SCOTUS.
SCOTUS is never the Trier of Fact. That role is reserved solely for juries in the American legal system.
Even if a jury convicted, SCOTUS would never substitute its judgment- there is no “de novo” review by appellate courts of decisions of fact, only review for errors of law.
For example, the NY court did not substitute its judment to find Weinstein innocent. It ruled that the trial judge made an error of law in allowing certain testimony to be heard that should have been excluded as prejudicial to the defendant. He gets a new trial, not an acquittal.
It is for a new jury to decide his guilt or innocence, but without the erroneously allowed testimony.
The sole thing SCOTUS is ruling on here is whether and under what circumstances, a President may ever be charged with a crime, in the American constitutional scheme.
Whether an act the President undertakes is private or public, is ultimately a question of fact. To first be decided by a jury, if the issue is contested. Using whatever test SCOTUS comes up with.
Think of it like this:
SCOTUS decides where the batter’s box lines are. The umpire (jury) decides whether it was a ball or a strike.
IDK, in theory, a judge could rule on that if a motion were to be presented regarding such elements.
But, the judge in DC is not going to rule in Trump’s favor. And would probably expose legal fallacies or prejudicial bias.
Personally, I wish it take that route, so it gets back in front of the SC with a ruling that the judge erred in her determination and finishing the case off by narrowing what the jury could decide with those regards.
I simplified it. Yes, at the trial level, everything from Motions for Summary Judgment to rulings on evidence to Motions for Directed Verdict come into play in the interaction between the application of law and the findings of fact.
I just want people to understand that the SCOTUS is never the entity that finds guilt or innocence, or the actual existence of a criminal conspiracy , or election fraud.
There seems to be this expectation that SCOTUS can take notice of facts not in the record, or SCOTUS can decide an election was stolen.
Not how it works, folks.
Got it. See what you were doing now. Makes sense and I agree.
So if a lower court decides something is a “fact” and that fact is not substantiated by evidence, what is the remedy?
The jury decides the facts. Was the light red or green? Jury question.
No evidence?
Then the defense would file a Motion for Directed Verdict possibly, at the end of the Prosecution’s case, for lack of evidence supporting the charge. If that was denied ( it happens) and it went to the jury and the jury found guilt, there would be another Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. If that was also denied despite the Prosecution’s failure to introduce evidence supporting the charge, then there would be an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
At that point the Court of Appeals would consider whether the prosecution met its evidentiary burden of proof, along with any other issues raised on appeal. So, it sort of becomes a question of law as to whether there was sufficient evidence introduced to meet each element of the criminal charge.
The same process happens with civil trials, except with lower burdens of proof (not ” beyond a reasonable doubt”, but either “clear and convincing,”or “preponderance of the evidence”).
I agree they will send it back down but somehow that seems to make Kavenaugh’s, Gorsuch’s & Alito’s concerns not about this case but concern for the future seem somewhat hollow, i.e., kicking the can down the road.
If they are going to depend upon motive to determine immunity then the motive must be what the president says it is/was. Otherwise it is speculation and politics.
We know what will happen at the lower DC courts concerning motive. It will end up back in SCOTUS’s lap. That is good in the sense that a trial will not happen prior to election and two of the charged statutes will likely no longer apply but I would have liked to have seen a stronger judicial attack on the obvious political nature (lawfare) that is becoming a legal pandemic infecting the entire justice system.
Maybe the DC courts should be instructed to watch “Let My People Go” film and reassess the charges and motive on the current documented facts of election malfeasance and fraud that would substantiate the president’s valid public interest in addressing the fraud.
Lol, By the time this gets back to SCOTUS, we’ll likely be entwined in 2024 election fraud.
The irony here is that Donald Trump had plenary power over the Department of Justice as it resides within his administrative branch of government.
He did not, however, execute that power effectively and they turned on him like a junkyard dog.
I guess the DOJ needs to be fed pre-pilled hamburger?
How could he have handled it most “effectively” considering the situation as it was between the election and the certification? I am genuinely interested if you know a way for him to have determined first that Barr lied about investigating the claims of fraud and irregularities; second when Governor Kemp would not call a special session of the Georgia legislature to investigate; and third when no courts would allow cases brought to even be heard.
Sundance: I listened to Mike’s rant(s). I did not hear him say SCOTUS would give absolute immunity to Trump. I did hear him say they would give some sort of limited immunity to Trump. Even I determined that from my own listening to the ordeal. I also heard other legal eagles say the same. SOME hyper types are afraid they would give absolute immunity. I often disagree with Davis. But he is not stupid. Neither am I. I am NOT sure he should be Atty General of anything.
I don’t think the SCOTUS should be making specific rules. I do think the legislative body should IF that is the real issue. If POTUS commits murder then of course he is not above the law. What he does politically should never be part of the recipe for indictments. There is a constitutional remedy for political malpractice when in office: Impeachment AND Trial and GUILTY verdict. I don’t blame SCOTUS for pushing back to lower court. I think that because of the obvious get Trump judge, it had to be brought to SCOTUS. What I find questionable is the fact that they even took it up in the first place. I think SCOTUS will send back and make judge(s) face their own problems, in detail. Then it could be reviewed again by SCOTUS. What needs to happen it for the repuke senators to stop rubber stamping ALL the courts nominees.
Just look at the 3 lib women. They are literally not as well versed in the Constitution, law, etc as I am. I have listened to several SCOTUS cases with these women. It is amazing how they even communicate. They are not the brightest bulbs on the platforms.
I am not pleased with Barrett. She is a snake.
So…SCOTUS will split the baby and then they will have to address it again. I don’t like any of this. NONE OF IT. I am not upset with SCOTUS or Davis.
Respectfully. Blessings.
Yeah… I shut off Bannon when Davis comes on. Same with Kash Patel. I like these guys, but they just bloviate to sell themselves.
At some point in time, since their “efforts” never change anything, they become cartoon characters.
The test should be whether a “hign” criminal act has been committed by a president. Is there provable corruption, personal murder, cruelty, treason, bribery, or strong-arm extortion in which a president has been the major player or an accomplice? Is having a “stand-by set of electors” a crime? No, it has happened before and has never been viewed as a crime. In fact, every election in every state has the winning electors and those that would have been official had their side won. Are inquiries about the status of votes counted and potential votes not counted a crime? Hardly. News organizations do it all the time.
So should the courts hash out “official act” vs “private act”? No. They should hash out “high criminal act” vs “inconsequential act”.
I agree with Sundance. The hearing was a goat rope. They will dump it back. They lack the balls (literally) to do the right think and make a good decision. I thought the attorneys did a horrible job presenting. I re listen and Sauer did better than I original thought. I need to review the briefs. There might be better info there.
YES, the president has blanket immunity from prosecution.
All the critics come out and put hypotheticals on the table such as WHAT IF the president committed homicide, etc.? Well, what about it? Do those people think that Congress would sit comfortably by and approve of it? If so, the end has arrived. If not, then Congress would eject him and no one would argue the point despite whatever fate became of him.
Setting aside the ludicrous, the president is the executive of the federal government. His job is to oversee the federal law enforcement. Congress’ job is to oversee the executive as a check. THAT IS THE LIMIT OF THE CONSTRAINT.
Were he subject to regular law while in office, he could be harangued by endless jurisdictional harassments, ad nauseum, interfering with his JOB, which is to act in governance of a federal system. Because he is UNIQUE in this capacity, he has been given a pass on being subject to the same system; i.e., he won’t simultaneously be supervisor of a system and also lowest employee subject to intermediate supervisory seniority–it makes no sense.
Anyone who understands this goes immediately to unqualified immunity, simply and because Congress is already defined constitutionally as the criminal behavior governor of the president’s acts. Period.
The hypotheticals were dog whistles for the Left: the politicians, the media and the citizenry.
Now they can all go around claiming Trump was planning a military coup, and a purging of opponents.
Nothing of import to the nation in this case. Let’s kick it back to night court.
For any interested there is a new streaming app called Merit Street Media! Not sure about the people who are behind it ?? (Dr. Phil and Steve Harvey and Trinity Broadcast Network.)
On Monday there will be a two part special by Phil called “The State Of New York Vs Donald Trump”
And this applies to the topic of this post how?
Put me down for SOTUS agreeing with the Meese amicus so that they don’t have to fool with the essential elements of the case.
Reduced to the absurd (reductio ad absurdum), President Trump can have every dept head of every agency meet at 5am every morning to witness his signature on his own pardon. {For things that might be deemed un-Obama-ish.] Mr. Trump could even be magnanimous and invite Hillary when she is sober that early.
The Appellate Court stated that Trump does not have immunity in THIS PROSECUTION. I don’t understand why SCOTUS cannot pick up the ball from there and say Trump does indeed have immunity in THIS prosecution because a President cannot impede an “Official Proceeding” or conspire to impede same, or conspire to deprive rights (by casting and counting ballots) after an election, or conspire to defraud the Government in his role as Chief Executive looking into allegation of election fraud.
Is there a federal official proceeding that a President cannot stick his nose into? Under whose authority?
Can the government unilaterally state the election is free from fraud in contrary to the opinion of a sitting president, thus resulting in a defrauding the United States indictment against the president?
SCOTUS kicking this back to the lower courts only invites further rap*ng of the constitution.
Kicking it back and forth runs out the clock until Trump takes office and a new AG shuts the whole thing down.
Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 on X:
“Final recap on votes. Okay, so this is extremely hard to describe because of the question that is being posed. How you articulate that question changes the votes. So, for example, I think ALL 9 of them think that the POTUS simply cannot be prosecuted for some official things.…” / X
So, for example, I think ALL 9 of them think that the POTUS simply cannot be prosecuted for some official things. A motion to dismiss such a case should succeed and likely could be appealed promptly. Example: giving a pardon. Also that all 9 agree the POTUS can be prosecuted, (impeachment or not) for purely private conduct. Example: he shoots his brother-in-law.
The three liberal justices are likely to say that the POTUS can be prosecuted for official acts that are outside the “core” functions of the President. “Core” would be things like the pardon, CinC functions, etc. They seem poised to say that the district court should figure that out first in some way.
Four of the conservative justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) appear to be prepared to rule that the POTUS has immunity on the criminal front just as on the civil front as in Fitzgerald, with campaigning being outside the scope of the immunity. They also gave hints that the district court would have to parse out the private from the public in the first instance and would likely allow a prompt appeal
of that.
The remaining two conservative justices are a bit harder to read (and Thomas said so little that he could be in this group too, but my instinct tells me he’s likely in the other group). Roberts seemed to have problems with both parties’ positions. And ACB clearly didn’t like the full scope of DJT’s position. They look likely to me to go for a limited version of the immunity. Less than DJT’s lawyers are asking for (full Fitzgerald type immunity), but they are definitely not going to say there is no immunity, but they don’t seem comfortable with immunity only for the “core” functions either.
The conservatives will I think – all 6 – assert that there is a broader protection. There will probably be at least two camps of what the scope is and how it functions procedurally.
So, DJT “wins” the case in the sense that a majority (and probably all the justices) will say that there is “immunity” or something like it for former Presidents and then they send the case back to Judge Chutkan with some kind of framework for applying it to this case.
I predict that the framework will be dictated by the middle – ACB and/or Roberts.
I agree. She is exactly correct.
The Court could kick the whole thing out by accepting the amici argument that Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed, and thus he has no standing, but they don’t appear likely to go that route.