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:
All delays are good delays. Trump wins, cases are terminated. Trump issues a blizzard of pardons. Then the total sunlight operation begins.
not much of a win but Kavanaugh is much less disappointing the Amy who is obviously a Roberts mini me
They look like brother and sister too – it’s just weird.
It’s a big club.
So far ACB seems to give a high degree of deference to state sovereignty in her rulings. That seems to be the pivot point for her. Sometimes siding with the states means siding with the liberals that run it. As long as she continues to lean toward limiting the reach of the federal government, she is ok by me.
ACB seems to adhere to the marxist interpretation of ‘social justice’ that is prevalent in the Catholic Church currently. Law was much more civilized when justice derived from the Judeo-Christian ethic.
That’s a good description of her. Things like “state sovereignty” mean nothing to her. She’s an authoritarian who believes government can and should do whatever it wants. Doesn’t matter if it is federal or state government.
True. . . During the Inquisition, many accused of crimes would blaspheme in a desperate attempt to get transferred from the extremely cruel, often unjust govt/secular courts to the church inquisition courts where they knew they would receive a fairer trial and more just merciful treatment.
Also, my understanding is the ACB attends a conservative/traditional Catholic church. Although it is true we have a “social justice” problem in a number of Diocese. The protestant churches aren’t much better and in many cases … unrecognizable as Christian churches.
I think she is trying to apply the law as she believes is right. She is a very smart woman. Hopefully she will serve the country well.
It goes back to the lower court where it gets “hashed out”, then back through the Appeals process to SCOTUS. That’s going to take months. Trump is NEVER going to win these cases in trial. A jury would be picked that is 99% Democrat and they’d convict in an hour. Lawfare depends on speed. Slow cases bring too much sunlight, such as with Mike Flynn. The longer the Flynn case dragged out, the more sunlight that appeared. Judge Sullivan freaked out during the appeals because his job was to prevent sunlight.
Delays help Trump. Look at Cannon’s un-redacting the Trump motion. That would not have happened if that trial had started last Fall or even in March like Lawfare wanted. Sunlight.
I’d hoped SCOTUS might actually rule for Trump since the Constitution provides a remedy – impeachment. The scenario they didn’t use which is a better one is what if some future POTUS kills his spouse in a fight. It looked like an accident, but later video footage emerges and we find out she was murdered by the (now) ex President. That could easily have happened during the Clinton presidency, for example. Would Bill Clinton be immune as an ex-President if he lost his shit and threw Hillary off a balcony while he was President?
That’s where they’re trying to draw this out, and I’m not going to lie, I think they’re right to ask those kinds of questions. Whatever this turns out to be, it has the potential to last for generations.
Any discussion of charging a president under criminal statutes that doesn’t demand a dart board to choose the court [NOT DC] and 50 jurors (one from each state) needs to be thrown in the trash can.
Is killing first lady an official act? Like picking or firing your AG? That is an official act.
Well, it’s Hillary…
Bill would definitely be NOT GUILTY in that scenario… I hereby cast my vote, even before all the evidence is in. 😉
Jonathan Turley characterizes this Supreme Court as incrementalist—a kinder way, I think, of calling them a bunch of COWARDS.
They have avoided the immunity issue for decades and as Sundance expects, the case will be remanded back to the lower court, making it impossible for Jack Smith to make his case before the election.
The Court’s latest show of cowardice came only days ago, when they refused to hear the Kari Lake election fraud case—a slam dunk case—which could have opened the door to fixing our broken election system, and ending LawFare’s perpetual criminalization of that constitutionally grounded process.
Instead, shortly following the Arizona decision, and by no coincidence, Arizona AG Kris Mayes filed a Fani Willis mirror image lawsuit against Giuliani et al with President Trump an un-indicted co-conspirator.
Mayes, herself, was invalidly elected by 280 votes with the same uncertified, vulnerable to cyber attack machines that rejected altered printed ballots that were later cited in the Lake case.
I worry that what we are witnessing SCOTUS do is avoid getting involved, at all, in elections to the extent they can avoid it. After 2000, I think they believe it’s a slippery slope.
That means we must do a far better job policing our very corrupt election system.
As I’ve said b4, the vast majority of votes are now mail-in ballots and early in-person voting. If you STORE uncounted ballots for weeks at a time… whether stored in a computer or storage room, we WILL have massive election fraud we cannot overcome.
Mail-in ballots are also counted … last. At the very least, they should be counted 1st. If counted after the SURPRISE election day vote, then political operatives know how many fraud ballots they need to insert into the counting machines to make Biden win.
Our voter registration lists are also approximately 40% inaccurate making it easy to create fraud ballots for every person that moved out of that state, precinct.
There is some work being done to increase election integrity but its not near enough to overcome massive election fraud.
Early in-person voting ballots are also recorded in the computers… so someone knows what that vote count is. The voters need to know too.
France permitted mail-in ballots for a time till they discovered massive election fraud. They have returned to in-person voting on election day, paper ballots, ID, same day counting the votes.
Anyway…
They were appointed to the Supreme Court and are paid TO GET INVOLVED.
It’s why they’re there!
Exactly. In VA they count mail in ballots first. And Younkin (R) won.
Elected by 280 votes, with 9000 they refuse to count. Ballots that were cast on election day at the polls that had machine malfunctions. This is a joke
I love the way you think!! It will be “Pardonpalooza”🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
…and then 🌞🌞🌞⚡️⚡️⚡️
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
I think the ruling is going to destroy the GA case and neuter the DC case based on what I heard. But Roberts will be writing the decision because of how ‘monumental’ the ruling will be. 6-3 again; maybe 6-1-2 with KGB going to the other extreme.
Considering we now know … THANKS to Sundance … that Robert’s SC advisor is Sheldon Snook … Snook is married to Mary McCord (“beach friends”) !!!
Roberts is being advised by a man whose wife is in charge of creating the Lawfare attacks against Trump !!!
This is a MASSIVE conflict of interest for Roberts … he must Recuse himself !!!
No, he left in ’23.
Hmmmm….. I wonder if he is the one who leaked the Roe decision….
He won’t recuse but it’s one more serious concern. I’m going to … hope 🙄 that Robert’s just wants a viewpoint different than his own… which is generally a wose thing to do. It could also be his blackmail team.
He did vote to strike-down Roe… so there’s that.
And SCOTUS justices are most concerned about the future of the Office of the Presidency…so hopefully they will be very wise. The full immunity is likely the best choice bc impeachment, conviction by Senate, removal… and then indictment already exists as a remedy and protection against Potuses committing serious crimes.
But to create ways to indict, imprison potuses once the leave office in multiple courts – Fed and state – by their political opponents as some form if vengeance is a far greater threat to the functioning and stability of the Office of the President.
Ruling will be far closer…..my guess is is 5-4 maybe 6-3 (Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barret and maybe Roberts) vs (Kagan/Sotomayer/Brown-Jackson/ and maybe Roberts)…….Strongest “Pro Chief Executive leads the executive branch” arguments will come from Thomas and Alito. Strongest “Pro Institutional Executive Branch Bureaucratic Power – and President is just a figure head” arguments will come from Brown-Jackson and Kagan. Not sure the ruling will neuter the DC case……If Roberts writes the decision it will only further muddy the waters much like his Obamacare decision. If past Sundance theories are correct, the IC/Deep State community has leverage over Roberts and they will use that leverage to achieve a favorable outcome that will allow continued persecutions of President Trump via abuse of the legal system.
If the President is just a “figurehead” why do they campaign on how they plan to direct the country and we spend so much time electing them?
So that DOJ attorney… did Obama really replace everyone with one of the 5 letters?
Obama murdering citizens is what I would call Democrat (communist) privilege
.
I agree with Sundance.
Remarkably, the government’s position appears to be that the President can only do what DOJ blesses in advance as lawful, and that he can’t do what the DOJ tells him he can’t do, or with which they disagree. Horrifying implications.
I also couldn’t help thinking, and fruitlessly waiting for someone to ask: what would the President be authorized to do, candidate or not, if there were in fact egregious widespread election fraud. Even the “good guys” seemed to accept the underlying assumption that there likely was not, and this was merely an election contest. And I can’t help wondering what these Justices now think of their turning away the states’ litigation — and, basically, setting up this mess.
.
In 1862 President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus as a result of the rebellion of the southern states. Today via Lawfare and the IC/Deep State, which includes elements of the DOJ and the Federal Court System, Habeas Corpus has been, in effect, suspended again in order to achieve ideological and political objectives. The example……A political candidate for Chief Executive Officer of the United States is being held hostage to a judicial system that refuses to abide in its own legal processes in order to oppress and suppress one citizen with whom the Deep State Executive Bureaucracy disagrees. A nation not founded on laws that abides by those laws cannot for long stand as a legitimate nation.
Well said!
Been hearing that word often these days, applied to gov’t at every level… “legitimacy”.
Gone, seriously compromised, failed, whatever. A SERIOUS CRISIS.
If the “good guys” accept that there was no election fraud, then they are NOT “good guys”.
SCOTUS is just kicking the can down the road if they do that. If so,lawfare wins as it will immediately be an acceptable means to abuse any American citizen, including the President. SCOTUS needs to grow a pair and answer the question permanently!!
The president is the CHIEF EXECUTIVE – he is in charge of the executive branch including the intelligence community and DOJ. So much of what exists is UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face. Trump or any common sense executive should test the president’s power as per the Constitution and start shutting down these institutions for their criminal actions. They cannot be allowed to execute their traitorous actions against an elected president or in other words, a COUP from within.
There is a doctrine, I think it may be called “Executive Supremacy Doctrine” it was strongly advocated by VP Dick Chaney and is depicted in the movie VICE, an excellent movie reviewing Chaney, Rumsfeld, etc. actions during “W’s” term.
Anyway, the doctrine says that the Executive can do whatever it wants, so long as it can justify it as being “National Security”.
The Constitution makes POTUS the CiC, with absolute, plenary power to act to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution and the Country.
So, if he percieves a threat, he doesn’t have to go to Congress or the Courts to get permission to act to defend the country FROM that threat, and ANYTHING HE DOES IS LEGAL, and can not be questioned or gainsayed by Congress or the Courts, IF it is done to protect the homeland.
THAT is the essence of this doctrine, that was used to justify torture, guantanamo, invading soveriegn countries, etc. during “W”‘s term.
And it has developed into a Frankenstinian monster, since. The recent narrative that Obama admin are considering declaring a Natl. Security Climate emergency, in order to assert additional powers is an example.
Covid plandemic was another,..similar idea.
IF the Executive can SAY what they are doing is to protect National Security, “the skies the limit” is the idea,..and of coarse melded in with this by Chaney, Rummsfeld, Wolfewitz, etc. is that the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, and specifically those ‘charged with’ National Security within the Executive, have this carte blanche to do anything, so long as they can justify it as “National Security”.
Unitary Executive Theory
FWIW
“The preference of a plural over a singular executive will probably not be assented to here.”
–Thomas Jefferson to A. Tracy, 1811
In this episode of BRI’s Primary Source Close Reads, Kirk looks at Federalist 70 and the debate between adopting a singular or plural executive.
But the ongoing question/debate is does a “National Security” threat override the entire Bill of Rights? I would say it did during the Covid plandemic! And that’s not the first time that has happened think American citizens of Japanese decent and internment camps during WWII! Replace those American citizens with “climate change” deniers and what would stop a round up of those deniers during a National Security threat except for our God given 2nd Amendment? I couldn’t go to church but I could go to a bar, a strip club or a liquor store? I didn’t want to go to a bar, strip club or liquor store but I wanted to go to church but couldn’t. We The MAGA People are about to be tested again!!!! Hope we fair better this time?
2020 was their coup IMO. These faceless Soviet octogenarian bureaucrats now rule with impunity, and will manage the controlled demolition of the former US and plundering of the treasury at will. Everything is fake now. Fake news. Fake president. Fake economy. Fake money. Fake country. Fake borders. Fake citizenship. Fake voting.
A good percentage of the population is hopelessly tv brainwashed. Just look at the absolute crap on tv. I don’t have tv but when I visit friends/family their tv is on all the time. The first thing they do when they get up is turn on the tv. 2008 is when we pulled the plug on tv and everything we could to survive the depression. It was a depression for us. My business dropped about 90% and we were bleeding cash after our lines of credit were cancelled for no reason. We had excellent credit. From that moment on we had zero trust in this gov. That crash was obviously engineered. We felt betrayed. What do they say about what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger? In retrospect looking in the rearview mirror it was the wake up call we needed. No more trust in banks. Use their credit when you can benefit. Be your own bank and carry little or zero debt and watch your savings pile up faster than you can imagine. I digressed, but these 80 something year old hardliners who control our gov today remind me of the Soviet Union before its collapse, and the plundering of the treasury IMO is these people know what’s coming and they are stealing as much as possible before the house of cards collapses. Either that or these people are so deluded that they think open borders and exponential money printing has no consequences. If by some miracle Trump is elected he is going to inherit a real mess and they will blame him for it 24/7 in the lamestream news cycle.
Good comment. Especially about everything being fake. Even fake food if we go along with it. We already have plenty of that – and is why so many are unhealthy. If Trump is prevented from winning the election, our lives will be over. They have seen with covid how the people will bow down. We will have to fight with everything we have to keep any semblance of the lives we knew before Big Government took over.
Exactly my take! Right on all points.
FWIW
“I had formerly looked with great interest to the experiment which was going on in France of an Executive Directory, while that of a single elective executive was under trial here.
“I thought the issue of them might fairly decide the question between the two modes. But the untimely fate of that establishment cut short the experiment.
“I have not, however, been satisfied whether the dissensions of that Directory (and which I fear are incident to a plurality) were not the most effective cause of the successful usurpations which overthrew them.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward, 1809
Isn’t this a power grab by the DOJ using ridiculous interpretations of the law?
I think official acts take precedence over private interest acts… even though there is private interest – the POTUS has a duty to ensure election integrity … therefore President Trump & all Presidents are immune. And the government is run by the President (Executive) & Congress & Judicial branches co-equally. The Deep State does NOT constitutionally possess the power & authority to govern that they have taken unto it! Enough of this communism – the STATE doesn’t own the power & it’s high time they were knocked on their butts!
That’s a good overview, but what we think doesn’t matter anymore. The laws and constitution don’t matter anymore. They rule by royal decree with the blessings of mad King Biden. We have come full circle from the madness of King George.
The thing is, the Supreme court had ample opportunity to “Hash Out” the legitimacy of the election from numerous submissions by the right, but turned them down and in my opinion forfeited their responsibility to the country….They’ve been doing a lot of that this Presidency.
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
The court has made itself irrelevant by their inaction.
Is this not a “WON” for us, in this sense;
It clarifies the key question,
Was PDJT’s actions OFFICIAL actions, ensuring the integrity of an election he considered sketchy or PRIVATE, trying to overturn the results of an election he had lost?
If that is the Key question, than it seems it further opens the already open door for PDJT to presenting, as an affirmative defence, ALL of the evidence (he had seen up to Jan 6) supporting the ‘sketchy’ nature OF the election.
Put another way and as an extreme case example; if after the election NOBODY except PDJT thought the election was sketchy, that he was pursueing various coarses/courses to challenge the results NOT as an official act, but out of personal pique, than it was personal, not official.
If, on the other hand there was a LOT of convincing evidence, enough to convince a reasonable person to have serious doubts about the validity of the election results, then as POTUS, he was obliged to see the election laws had been faithfully carried out, i.e. Official Act.
Point being this door was opened as soon as the case was filed, to the lay person it SEEMS self-evident; if PDJT’s team can show admissable evidence that he had reason to question the election results, he WINS, as its an Official Act.
And, importantly he does not HAVE to prove, in court that the election was stolen (in order to win).
He ONLY has to show, WITH ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE, that he had GOOD REASON to believe the election results were, as Sundance says, “sketchy”.
So, it is hard for me to fathom how the trial court can insist on blocking PDJT’s team from admitting evidence of election fraud, as that is his affirmative defence.
It would be like not allowing clear evidence of an alibi for a criminal defendent, that is argueing “I could not have committed the crime, as I was HERE, and I have 150 witnesses and time/date stamped video to prove it!”
So, if I am correct, this case finally allows PDJT to “make his case” that the election was stolen, and to present all the evidence (IMPORTANTLY!) available to him up to the time of the alleged crime (presumable Jan. 6?) which caused him to question the results.
And, this is where the official statements of “his” A.G., Barr “his” FBI Director Wray, the leadership of Congress “especially his own party” all insisting the election was “the most secure in History” will be presented, by the Prosecution, in an attempt to refute his affirmative defence.
The biased Judge working with the Prosecutor, will try to suppress as much evidence of election “sketchyness” as possible, as well as evidence of others who questioned the results, to make it look like it was ONLY PDJT that questioned the results, and that he had no legitimate REASON to.
🎯
Back door – open sesame.
I’m wondering, can this be done at the State level? As in all 50 states? In all counties?
People need to remember that the key element in Smith’s indictment is Trump’s mens rea, or “state of mind.” Smith claims Trump knew he was NOT cheated, but claimed he did in order to have an excuse to do all of this.
The People brought the evidence to PDJT. We the People demanded it be looked at. Smith’s myopic and psychopathic focus on one man conveniently ignores the massive discontent that led to this. He acts (as do the rest of the swamp) like we do not exist. It is infuriating, as we just sit here and watch them duke out their personal power play amongst themselves on a stage.
This was OUR g*d damn election. WE are the shareholders of this company. WE have the complaints. WE have the evidence. WE were out in the field and personally witnessed the breaches. Smith acts like this is some fantastical personal desire for PDJT to be King of the World forever, occurring in a vacuum.
This has become so f*ed up and ridiculous and out of control and surreal and beyond the pale. They have made up a total fictional fairy tale of soap opera intrigue when the rest of us normal people sit here, with real evidence in hand of regular, documented irregularities and impossible statistical anomalies we would have liked to have been looked at and heard, please, thank you very much. That’s it, that’s all, Jack, not your stupid, weird, twisted maniacal theory of “overthrowing the government” and “attacking democracy” and “attempted coup.”
God I hate these clowns.
What I found most interesting is how the majority of the justices were posing their questions without any consideration of the specific actions of President Trump. They were focused on the grander question about immunity for the office of the President of the United States. They are not debating the narrow points of what President Trump did or didn’t do.
The biggest question to me is whether or not the constitution allows the Article III branch to usurp the authority specifically granted to the Article I branch. I see no opening for that interpretation.
The argument you make is exactly what the SC is supposed to do.
They are not “triers of fact” ie Trump’s problems.
Their job is to hash out the constitutionality of the actions of that office you speak of.
The Laws are the Laws AS ‘THEY’ SEE THEM!
That was an excellent read!
Very well stated.
“Was PDJT’s actions OFFICIAL actions, ensuring the integrity of an election he considered sketchy or PRIVATE, trying to overturn the results of an election he had lost?”
It is so obviously the former, for at least the reason that elections were declared part of the nation’s infrastructure, over which the president has executive authority. Case in point, when Chris Krebs, head of CISA, declared the 2020 election was “perfect,” with no breaches whatsoever of its “perfectly secured infrastructure,” his Boss, PDJT, fired him for incompetence and dishonesty. The man in charge, at the very top, saw what he considered to be evidence of integral breakdown in the nation’s election infrastructure, and so acted accordingly with his executive authority in demanding it be scrutinized more thoroughly than it had been in the compressed time frame between election “day” and transfer of power. He acted absolutely within his executive authority in this capacity. Millions of citizens he served were demanding it, clamoring to be heard with their concerns and their evidence of breaches of weak points in our election infrastructure, which had been exacerbated by Elias and crew. Any lesser response to We the people from PDJT would have been a dereliction of duty on his part, a sign of uncharacteristic weakness, and a massive disappointment. (In other words, what a RINO would have done.)
Imagine if the roles were reversed. I believe this is what the left would argue.
And the fact that the end result, if the breaches were proven to the satisfaction of Congress, would be that PDJT would serve a second term, is INCIDENTAL.
As I read the Constitution, Article 1, section 3 the last two paragraphs dealing with impeachment, any crimes committed by a President are handled only by the Senate via an impeachment trial. Only if convicted by the Senate can he be tried in the lower courts.
So no impeachment, no lower court cases and if impeached but not convicted, no lower court cases.
Relevant text:
…”The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”…
Key words are “but the party convicted.” I don’t know how the court can ignore this.
I don’t think “official” vs “private” is even relevant for this court to address. That would be decided in the impeachment and conviction. This is in the Constitution because the President is to be tried differently from regular citizens. Otherwise, why even mention it?
Jack smith was never legally appointed as a “special prosecutor”. When will that be used to just dismiss all this Lawfare crap??
Two amici briefs raised the issue of Smith being unconstitutionally appointed before SCOTUS. It would be a quick and easy way of getting out of this (and kicking the “immunity” can down the road), but they didn’t appear interested.
That’s probably further into the playbook….perhaps?
It seems to me that would be an easy decision for the SCOTUS to avoid dealing with the issue of immunity.
Toolnut,
I agree they are trying for a second bite at the apple.
The narrative going around now is that, because the SCOTUS said (in the Colorado exclusion from the ballot case) that “Only Congress can exclude PDJT from the ballot” so supposedly the plan is to give the Dems in the House the majority, so that they can quickly pass legislation excluding PDJT from the ballot.
The SCOTUS didn’t give a roadmap, but its right there in the Constitution; FIRST try a POTUS in the House, and convict in the Senate, of “insurrection”, and so IMPEACH him FOR “Insurrection”.
THEN, and only then can they prosecute him, in Court FOR insurrection, as he will have had his Presidential immunity stripped from him (by the Impeachment conviction) and be prohibited from holding office (and so presumably running) BY THE IMPEACHMENT.
THAT is how “only Congress can prevent him from running for POTUS” and Congress already ATTEMPTED to Impeach him for Insurrection, after he left office, and it was unsuccessful.
Hmmm. I know who should be the next AG under PDJT. Dutch you know. Then SC Justice before the end of his second term. 😁🙏🏽 blessings do occur and are happening all around us.
Maybe but only in Trump’s case. Pelosi’s impeachment of a president out of office was unconstitutional. Remedy for unconstitutional act completely immunizes Trump. Since future presidents can’t be impeached out of office partial immunity would apply?
Well said.
I agree that focusing on official vs private is a distraction because like hate crimes, there is mostly opinion. Any president has the resources to come up with an explanation for “any” act that reasonable people would debate.
Some simple examples.
Jaywalking could be considered personal because the president is lazy, or, it’s official because the president had to get somewhere quick.
Sexual harassment in the oval office for the pleasure of the president is personal, but if the president says the harassment was designed to get the person to admit to spying, it’s official.
Allowing illegals into the country and hiring them to do your yardwork sounds personal but if those same illegals were granted asylum and offered pay it would be official?
If the president failed to pay his taxes it sounds personal but what if the DOJ was investigating the IRS for targeting the president and his party with unwarranted audits?
If an existing president were to threaten to withhold funds from another country because that country is investigating his son, it looks obviously personal, but what if that country had secretly made statements threatening the presidents family and those secrets could not be revealed?
Taking a bribe would be considered by most to be personal but I can’t come up with a justification for official.
The point is that congress is the only entity that has authority/jury to make these decisions and it can only be done through the impeachment process. No lower court or department of government can ever be allowed to accuse or prosecute any actions of a serving president unless congress first asserts that authority. No lower court can set rules for personal vs official and mandate that congress must determine these facts.
I think the SC will inevitably punt this as a congressional issue covered under impeachment very similar to the 14th amendment ballot removal issue that must be addressed through congress. The court does not want endless cases coming to them from prosecutorial misconduct.
SCOTUS does have an “out” here and that’s simply to say if a crime were discovered after a President left office, the remedy remains Impeachment. We’re only talking about things that happened during the Presidency, not before or after. OK, so the guy was President when x happened? That’s for the Congress to decide and the remedy is Impeachment.
It’s interesting because I didn’t hear anybody make that argument. Just because you’re not president “now” doesn’t mean Congress can’t impeach you for something you did “then”.
What would be the purpose of taking up all that time and resources?
Sauer’s response on the question of a guilty President getting away with crimes at the end of his term, or hidden until later, was, well, that’s a cost of the system. It is what it is, but it’s better than hampering the Executive.
Looking at Obama’s allegedly immunized murders as President, it is difficult to agree.
Looking at the threat of a DS President getting the advice of his Senate confirmed AG that it is legal to murder American children in an elementary school in Omaha via drone strike because Nebraska was in a state of rebellion because it kicked federal LEO out after it refused to allow men in little girls’ locker rooms?
It is very, very difficult to agree.
I do want to see Obama prosecuted for the Awlaki child’s murder.
Remember. They try out and perfect action abroad (pervasive surveillance, color revolutions) before they bring it here and turn it on us.
I do not believe I am being hyperbolic with my Omaha scenario.
After all, my government already tried to kill me and millions of my fellow citizens with the Covid jabs hoax, and succeeded with killing at least 500,000 of us.
If the president is on the hook for battlefield ops, then so are his reports on down the line of command all the way to the warrior behind the implement.
Even Alito or Thomas wouldn’t accept that argument because they would not judicially agree that a president can be impeached while out of office. Even Trumps attorney was leaning towards a remand. Also, some private acts were conceded. A remand is inevitable.
Success depends on the timing of the S ct. ruling and What Chutkin is required to do. Trump will be able to appeal that ruling Six months left before the election. Chutkin has already ordered 3 months of pretrial when the clock begins to run.
Fugit irreparable tempus!
Excellent point.
And President Trump’s second impeachment trial was not even overseen by a SCOTUS member, but a fellow senator. Totally against the Constitution.
Sundance is correct. This is all kabuki theater with all public officials. Everything boils down to qualified immunity, qualified immunity generally encompasses, almost everything public officials do, even minor actions under official duties. The POTUS is indeed in charge of the entire administrative state of the United States government.
Sundance, I know that you are a lot more informed than me, but I can’t understand the constant bashing of people on our side. Bannon has reached and awakened an army of MAGA recruits and Davis has proven himself to at least be on our side. I can see disagreeing without the snark. Sincerely, OldFish.
Oldfish, please identify the “constant bashing” you reference. Use citations to emphasize the strength of your “constant” point.
Thanks in advance and say hello to the glowworms for me.
Warmest best,
Sundance
I didn’t catalogue all the receipts, but have noticed over time the comments about Charlie Kirk and others. I just don’t understand the point of it. I’m not affended by your glowworm comment, but now I see your not interested in a serious discussion. Maybe this site is too much about how smart you are.
Well, it is his site.
And he’s very rarely incorrect.
Maybe War Room and TPUSA are a better fit for you.
Show me on the Charlie Kirk doll where I hurt him.
Seriously, show me this “constant” hurting of Bannon and Kirk you mention. Show me and I will humble myself with an apology. However, if you cannot show me (which you will not be able to do), then you are identifying yourself to the community within this comment section.
Again, your words…. “the constant bashing of people on our side.”
Show me evidence of this or show yourself as carrying an ulterior motive for such a statement.
As you know I don’t comment much. I’d much rather read and learn from you and the others. I think you know Sundance, that the way you refer to some people is purposely condescending, I guess including me now. I wasn’t looking for a food fight, just trying to figure out why you do it. We need all hand on deck and in the same boat.
So now you are going with the passive aggressive route. A typical leftist Alinsky maneuver.
Accuse the target of something false, refuse to provide any evidence of the accusation, then pearl clutch and play victim when confronted.
IT’s not a food fight, it’s really simple.
You said I “constantly bash” Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon. IF true, providing evidence therein would be easy…. But it’s not, because its entirely false. So that leads to the question…. Who are you, and why did you feel the need to make such an unfounded accusation?
Therein lies the motive you need to run away from.
It’s a simple issue. If you are correct, you will have no issue providing a citation. If you are intentionally lying you will not have that ability. Hopefully, the page of commentators is watching this lesson in how to draw out a person with an agenda.
🎯 💥 💥 💥 💥 💥
Oh, we’re watching, Big Dog!!!!!
Very closely.
This one ain’t the only one, which I know you know.
Another “tell” may be some of those “liking” him so fast once you engaged.
Just sayin.
Either he’s the member of a team prepared to like each other’s accusatory inanities, or he owns a passel of cellphone with VPNs.
I suspect both.
Another option is many are stuck on stupid. They haven’t graduated to a higher level and easily swayed by Alinsky tactics.
Ad hominem
I have noticed there are usually around 5 up votes right away. Seems like they travel in packs like coyotes.
Ad jominem
Ad hominem
Bannon and Charlie Kirk are loose cannons and insane.
Now that’s a bit much. Charlie is doing a lot of good work getting conservatives registered to vote in key states. What are you doing?
But….registered to vote for whom? Neocons? NeverTrumpers? Kirk was very warm with overtures towards DeSantis until DeSantis finally imploded. No regard at al to the fact that DeSantis represented a cabal of wealthy corporate interests who wanted a grateful (for their financial support) Big Club member as opposed to the people’s choice of Outsider Trump. Charlie Kirk is what my father called a “frontrunner.” No loyalty to a particular person or set of policies, only to whoever he thinks is leading the race and going to win. TPUSA seemed to be a good organization at first but began looking like an attempt to grift off of Pres.Trump’s popularity. Be aware – Charlie Kirk has become a millionaire off of TPUSA.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/turning-point-usa-charlie-kirk-maga-rcna119769
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/08/charlie-kirk-students-for-trump/
Bannon has exposed his dark side only a few times but enough to inadvertently reveal his loyalties – to himself. Yes he has broadcast much truth about the information war but War Room is a huge moneymaker (grift) for him and he will protect that before going down with Pres. Trump if he perceives that what might be happening. President Trump with his MAGA policies represents a majority of Voters in this nation but these grifters only go with who might come out on top politicly.
Always follow the money. Ignore the loud bluster and public act they put on. Watch what they do with the donation money behind the scenes. Seems those two are pocketing a “healthy” amount of it for themselves…
Well poisted, GB!
Great summary analysis.
✔️
TPUSA led the Runt DeSanctus scam right out the gate with the Arizona not-a-campaign roll out.
The only time I ever felt Kari Lake was less than genuine was praising Runt at that event, and I’m positive she regrets it.
TPUSA . . . TP? Think about it. 😁
🧻
🎯👍
LOL
you are absolutely wrong about Charlie Kirk. He is working his butt of to get folks registered to vote and do ballot harvesting. Sometimes the republicans are their own worst enemy. Bannon, I don’t watch him so I have no opinion
I’d like to see you do what he does at 70, working 60-70 hour weeks, under siege from the DS.
The guy is brilliant, well-versed in the historical & ideological roots of Western Civilization, finance, military matters, film making, running a news site, building the part of the wall the Army Corp was impossible, etc.
Yes, he’s bombastic, opinionated, etc, but NOBODY DOES WHAT HE DOES! Who could have organized the MAGA Resistance & given us a voice? Who wouldn’t have backed down? Who would have been as relentless as he is? A lesser man would have been crushed, or surrendered before now.
Go walk a mile in his shoes, and then speak.
There was an Insurrection on Jan 6th.
Many bad actors colluded to ensure the clear winner of the 2020 Presidential Election, President Trump, was not inaugurated to his rightful second term. It was a coup d’etat.
I believe President Trump took appropriate measures prior to leaving office to ensure the survival of our country. Don’t know the details but guessing it’s some form of devolution.
Just pure speculation on my part based on what I see.
This case at the Supreme Court is not about President Trump. It’s about those who stole the election. They are on offense to keep themselves from playing defense. They are trying to save their own hides.
I believe they will all soon be on defense as this and many other attacks against our favorite President boomerang right back on them.
This has to come to a head and be exposed if our country is to survive. There’s no other way.
Just look at the facts. President Trump won the 2020 election in an overwhelming landslide. He never lied. He never covered anything up. He never destroyed any election results or congressional inquiry documents. They did.
They have nothing on him. Nothing!
Coke please!
So President Trump claimed there is significant evidence in certain states of election fraud and corruption that created fraudulent results in favor of Biden. He always said and pushed for those states to investigate the evidence of the corruption. That was what J6 was all about.
Now Election Integrity is one of, if not the main concerns in our country. I think over 60% of voters think Election Integrity needs to be addressed. Citizens want to trust our elections. Many states are reviewing their procedures and methods to improve the integrity of our elections. Not enough though IMO.
So President Trump did indeed bring election issues to the attention of our various government institutions which was his job. It has now become a major issue for our country. If he had not done his job and just accepted defeat and conceded to Biden, the many problems with our election processes and methods would have been swept under the rug.
If it were to have been found after his push for investigations that there was enough corruption to overturn the election then he would have proven his assertions. Then the states and courts could address the issue as they should. It would benefit our faith in elections, which we now do not have. Does it even matter if finding the truth benefited him.
Oh and Happy Birthday Melania!
Absolutely absurd to think they will be able to separate “official” actions from “private” actions.
Exactly! If it boils down to that distinction which would be determined by a judge and jury then in reality THERE IS NO PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY!!!
Hmmm… that’s what Mike Davis said would happen.
Here is a bit of a different perspective…. Knowing Roberts and his inability to stick his head out of the foxhole they will most likely send it back down to the lower court as the article denotes.
I have a take on it and that is by doing so it very much is in keeping with what our Founders wanted and that is letting the “people” decide! This B$ is not going to happen before the election so if you want a REAL country better go out and support Trump to the point they can not possibly cheat enough. Nothing new here since the old adage that the Dems always cheat so make sure it is not “close”!
Some very smart folks here. Thoughtful comments and all. But, I expect no decision that would expose the Enlightened One. Cowards.
It is easier than SCOTUS makes it. A President can be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The use of “and” between High Crimes and Misdemeanors means impeachment for misdemeanors is NOT an option for the House of Representatives. They can include any misdemeanors that accompany a “High Crime” (Felony), but no misdemeanors standing alone are impeachable. If Senate convicts, President is removed. After removal, President is vulnerable to indictment, but not until then. This is in all cases, too. Doesn’t matter what the President’s motive was in committing a felony. I don’t know why the fact no sitting President can be indicted, according to DOJ policy, seemed to mean much to any of them.
I think Sundance is right about what will happen. ABSOLUTE immunity will NEVER, and should never, happen.
How about those rats going after the Arizona “Alternate Electors?” Funny, but I don’t remember Mike Pence opening TWO “PAPERS” after Amy Klobuchar read the results in the CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT that declared BIDEN the winner. Pence did not bring those “papers” for any of the States to the party on 1/6. They were not relevant to what happened that day at all. Arizona’s Trump “Alternate Electors” were 100% his ORIGINAL Elector Nominees who were chosen in accord with the applicable law of Arizona. None of them were Unconstitutional like those of 5 other delegations of Alternate Electors:
Pennsylvania had 8 Unconstitutional Alternate Electors.
Michigan had only 2 Unconstitutional Alternate Electors.
Georgia had 4 Unconstitutional Alternate Electors.
Wisconsin had 1 Unconstitutional Alternate Electors.
New Mexico had 1 Unconstitutional Alternate Elector.
Nevada had 0 Unconstitutional Alternate Electors, like Arizona.
There actually were NO “Alternate Electors” in 2021, since Pence did not open any such papers for any of the states and there were no debates of the House and Senate in their respective chambers regarding slates of “Alternate Electors” for Trump. There were some Objections debated, and that is all.
That’s the thing about this. The Constitution gives us correct path. If you think a president has committed a crime, there is Impeachment in the House and Trial in the Senate. If convicted in the Senate, then subject to Indictment, Trial, Acquittal or Conviction. This process was followed and there was no conviction in the Senate. End of story unless you’re a democrat/communist when something doesn’t go you way, you try to get your way through activist prosecutors and judges. Which is where we are now…
I almost forgot. At least two states have gone after the Trump “Alternate Electors,” Arizona and Michigan. Funny, but Jack Smith hasn’t gone after any of them, but appears to suggest that those Elector Nominees and Unconstitutional Electors were tricked into casting their votes by White House people telling them their votes were contingent upon Trump winning a legal action in the respective states that would have awarded Trump the Electoral Votes of those states. This “bait and switch” Theory of Smith is documented in his indictment. Smith is treating the “Alternate” Electors as victims in this case. This, plus the Electoral Count Act has not defined as criminal acts having one or more papers that are NOT Certificates of Ascertainment, but “purport to be the Electoral Votes of a State.”
Sundance is right on one thing—SCOTUS Justices are cowards. They hate disagreeing with the Administrative State aka Deep State because they know it comes with a cost.
I hope we all can agree that the idea that the founders’ institutional arrangements still obtain is nothing but a nostalgic fiction today—especially the idea of checks and balances based on federalism and the separation of powers.
And yes, the smartest thing they could do, which they won’t, would be to say the Congress is in charge and has been expressly given the role of policing the behavior of the President of the United States while in office. So the executive can only prosecute a former POTUS for any acts he committed while in office if he was impeached, tried, convicted and subsequently removed by the Senate.
The Constitution provides only one venue for prosecuting the POTUS: Impeachment by the House and Conviction by the Senate.
But the Admin. State and the Left in general are unhappy with having those safeguards in place just as they are unhappy with the SCOTUS not always kowtowing to their demands on gun rights or abortions.
Is this true?
Rot roh.
Repeating my previous comment:
If it is true … then … SC Robert’s is not only being advised by Sheldon Snook – married to Mary McCord … “beach friends”in charge of creating the lawfare scams against Trump
… but Robert’s is dining with another “beach friends” who is prosecuting Trump for the lawfare scams.
This borders on a criminal conflict … and is absolutely a MASSIVE conflict of interest !!!
Roberts must Recuse himself.
This will matter if Roberts is one of the no votes with the liberal judges.
Probably going to need more than a random twit and stock image of Roberts to answer that question.
There was no Supreme Court “ruling” on Pres. Trump’s immunity case. There were “oral arguments” presented to the SCOTUS yesterday. I suspect Joshua is either a troll or a dumb ass.
Is what true? That Joshua Hall is very likely a troll? Yeah, that’s probably true.
I listened to the entire hearing yesterday. I will say that there were positive moments in this, whether the Kavanaugh discussion above, as well as some of the others. Of course, conversely, the ‘stupidity’ of Brown-Jackson, Sotomeyer, etc., was truly appalling. However, with regard to whether Trump’s action regarding the veracity of the 2020 election results…aside from assuming that this is a ‘private interest’, why is it not considered an ‘official act’ of the president, as, in essence, he is attempting to protect the votes that Americans actually made?? The special counsel claims the act of reviewing an election outcome is a private benefit to the President and not part of presidential immunity. Wrong. It is a public interest for ALL Americans.
Yes, it can be in the public interest and in personal interest at the same time. Therefore there is immunity. Gonna be difficult for Chutkan to argue that secure elections are not in the public interest and that POTUS has no responsibility towards that security, especially since his signature is on an election security E.O.
Seems to me that Alito won the day.
Alito is a worthy successor to Scalia.
It was also somewhat amusing when the Government indicated that a president would be ‘immune’ if his attorney general gave him legal advice and the president followed it. Of course, that would normally mean not having a Judas like Bill Barr as attorney general.
That means an AG’s opinion is Holy Writ and sacrosanct–another word for immune–but the president’s opinion–who hired him–is not.
That’s not Law. It’s Calvinball Under Color of Law.
Upvote for using Calvinball!
I heard the same thing and thought, wait, so if the deep state says it’s okay, then you may be good?
What constitutionalistic person would ever run for President, knowing their only say-so is over pardons, recognizing foreign states, appointing cabinet members, and shaking hands with dignitaries from foreign lands for the cameras.
I truly believe this Dreeben guy had to contain himself from saying, “The President really has no power whatsoever and we here in the deep state do not recognize an executive branch.”
And speaking of a ‘coup’, the Government also cites the Nixon presidency and removal as an indication of whether or not presidential immunity exists. Of course, now 50 years after the fact, it is fairly confirmed that the Nixon situation was a coup in its own right. I suspect that the powers that be felt that assassinating 2 presidents within 20 years, in order to get rid of them, was a bit much.
They broke up the monotony with the Bushes attempt on Real President Reagan.
Bush Angle to Reagan Shooting Still Unresolved as Hinckley Walks – WhoWhatWhy
A Story I Had to Leave Out of My Book by RUSS BAKER
Remember this the next time George W. Bush calls you a terrorist for wanting Honest Elections.
Bush Angle to Reagan Shooting Still Unresolved as Hinckley Walks – WhoWhatWhy
The Nixon thing is exactly like Trump. Doj, Fbi, CIA, military, Congress, white house staffers, and the media all worked together. I think Corsi wrote a book.
Yesteryear:
Remembering John Yoo whose legal opinions and role in justifying controversial interrogation techniques during the Bush administration were widely criticized by human rights groups and legal experts, with some accusing him of enabling torture and war crimes.
https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/decline-and-fall-of-john-yoo/
Today:
DOJ states it is OK to drone kill American citizens one of whom was under indictment ( Extra judicial killing )
So called legal experts and human rights groups silent.
Why?
Because it’s their boy. ( Obama )
We are witnessing the incredible shrinkage of the power of the office of President of the United States.
much like the shrinkage of FJB’s brain.
Really? It seems to have expanded significantly under Dementia Joe…..
yes … he does whatever he wants. Look at the LAWS he has broken
but only for a Republican!!! Look at how Biden is RULING. He is doing what ever the eff he wants and the REPUBLICANS never challenge him in court. After this election, I am DONE with this party. They are NOT for Americans. They are as bad or worse than the Democrats. The Democrats WILL tell you what they will do. The Republicans LIE
Why do most leftist lawyers sound like women?
Jeff Childers makes a point I haven’t yet seen in today’s C&C:
“ Before leaving the Supreme Court story, I’d like to briefly point out a few things that exasperate me about the discussion of presidential immunity. I’m only a commercial litigation attorney, not a constitutional scholar, and nobody listens to me, but during the entire two hours of oral argument and hundreds of probing Supreme Court questions, it struck me the Justices were largely missing the point.
All nine Justices, including the liberals, seemed shocked by the concept of absolute presidential immunity. Like me, you’ve probably heard the media’s vomitous, broken-record jargon until your ears were bleeding: “nobody is above the law.” Really? Is that true?
Let’s start with judges. Judges are immune. If a judge makes a mistake, and an innocent person goes to the electric chair, what happens? Nothing. Even if the judge intentionally railroaded the defendant because of racial bias or for any other reason, what happens? Nothing.
How about Congressmen? Congressmen are immune. If they start a war that gets thousands of Americans killed, for illegal reasons (Wag the Dog), what happens? Nothing. (Critics will yap about bribery. So what? How many successful prosecutions have there been? At best, which is a stretch, bribery prosecutions only show a limited exception to Congress’ broad, general immunity.)
How about City Commissioners? City Commissioners are immune. What if a city commissioner violates citizens’ constitutional rights in Florida by mandating vaccines, and an outraged lawyer (me) proves the constitutional violation in court? What happens to the Commissioners?
Nothing.
How about cops? Cops are immune. At least, they enjoy qualified immunity. What happens if a cop negligently mows down grandma while chasing a teenaged jaywalker at irrationally high speeds? Nothing. Immune.
For Heaven’s sake, the entire government is immune. It’s a concept called sovereign immunity. The only way ‘round sovereign immunity is when the government graciously de-immunizes itself by passing a law allowing certain types of claims against government officials. Otherwise, tough luck, starbuck.
Although his immunity produces extremely vexing results in many cases, it is just as necessary as other types of government immunity. The President is not even an ordinary government official. He’s an entire branch of government. Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the Executive Branch.
Under the Constitution, the President enjoys powers exceeding those of any other government official, so it seems uncontroversial that he would also enjoy immunity exceeding that of any other government official.
I mean, through his pardon power, the President can even dish out immunity to anybody else, for any crime, no matter how horrible, even mislabeling checks. Why not himself?
Would I love to see Barack Hussein Obama tried for his crimes? A hundred percent. But that would open Pandora’s immunity box and start the political prosecution train going. Next stop, Banana Republic.
What to me was unaccountably absent from yesterday’s oral arguments was any discussion about the mountain of broad immunities already enjoyed by government and whether the President’s immunity should rest somewhere near, if not right at, the peak.
In other words, at minimum, a president should never have less immunity than every other government official. We put up with immunity so judges can rule without fearing personal consequences. We want Presidents to execute their duties boldly and decisively.
Nobody made that point yesterday.
What can I tell you? It’s a super strange year.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/coffeeandcovid/p/bad-luck-friday-april-26-2024-c-and
(Edited to add paragraph breaks)
Can the Clinton/Rodham Crime Family be indicted by the Heber Springs City Attorney for selling Presidential Pardons like some cheap-ass cornpone corrupt Southern governor straight out of “Dukes of Hazzard”, but without Catherine Bach’s redeeming beauty?
US ATTY Jim Comey had cleared the Clinton/Rodham Gang in exchange for an FBI Directorship To be Named Later and a Fung Shui Souvenir Bag of Hillary’s Toenail Clippings, which is also Bribery, Obstruction, Desperation, Low Self-Worth and damn poor Personal Hygiene.
You have your Confederate Monuments, I have mine.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”― Robert Heinlein
.
They are all immune for OFFICIAL ACTS. Only.
.
If you’re right, which I doubt, and it boils down to that distinction between official and personal which would be determined by a judge and jury then in reality THERE IS NO PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY! The President of the United States is back in court at the mercy of biased judges, corrupt low level officials and potently hostile jury.
Also why the Supreme Court and courts in general avoid touching the third rail of election fraud cases, unless you can bring in evidence bags full of fraudulent ballots. And hanging chads was probably the last stop on that train. The courts will find some excuse: filed prematurely, lack of standing, laches, etc. to refuse to review most election related court cases that could potentially change election results. They learned to leave the controversy to the politicians, media wags, and public opinion to debate. ‘Election Integrity’ – better have that sorted out before the election, if indeed it can be done this day and age, after the process has been so thoroughly corrupted by mail in ballots, early voting, endless ballot counting, late night stops in counting ballots, questionable voting machines and tabulators, lack of voter registration controls, no checks on citizenship or ID allowed, and millions of illegals let into the country during the Biden Administration.
When glancing at this morning’s “Wall Street Journal” before putting it on the chair where Mom picks it up to read – I saw something about the SCOTUS and immunity –
when talking about immunity for the President of the United States, am I incorrect to think that it CANNOT be regarded as partial or “somewhat in some areas” – it is like being pregnant, you aren’t just a “little bit” pregnant –
either the President has immunity – or he doesn’t – no “areas of gray” or “selective prosecution” where the SCOTUS or any lower court would say that it is partial.
They are trying to split the baby.
So glad DOJ cleared up that confusion I had over “lawful murder”, whether from drone or extermination furnaces. I’ve always suspected this was Obama’s true intentions after his tutoring lessons he got from Frank Marshal Davis, Bill Ayers, Hillary Clinton and George Soros. I took an oath seriously; they took an oath that meant nothing!
I like Mike Davis because he is a fighter, same for SKB.
MD did say he thinks it will be sent back to the lower court with a 5-4 or 6-3, on many occasion.
I am MAGA and do not accept what anyone says without doing my own research, which is why I continue to return to LR, to see your perspective, sources, receipts.
However, we are in a time, history of our country where what ever blend of conservative we are we must unite and come together, even if there are differences on how to achieve the ultimate goal to get PDJT elected. We can all agree to disagree, but our goals should be focused on the prize, getting PDJT back in office.
Maybe it is disingenuous of MD but on every occasion I have seen him comment when he is asked about being in USAG, he adamantly always denies it and instead mentions many other better candidates than himself 🤔
I seek truth and listen to SKB, Victor Davis Hanson, and many other disparate voices and read LR daily; I am grateful for the knowledge I have obtained from all of these brilliant conservatives.🇺🇸
Peace be with you and to all of MAGA 🇺🇸
“Maybe it is disingenuous of MD but on every occasion I have seen him comment when he is asked about being in USAG, he adamantly always denies it and instead mentions many other better candidates than himself.”
It’s pretty obvious MD wants the easy $$$ by calling balls and strikes from the broadcast booth instead of from behind home plate where he’d be accountable to both teams.
I kind of lost faith in you for your comment on Mike Davis who has proven to be a real warrior for our side…he said almost exactly what you said it will be remanded back to the lower court and the Supreme Ct will no doubt have to weigh in again…shame on you. I will have to check what you say very carefully from now on
How can you tell, maybe it turns out to be both. In the case of President Trump pushing to have investigations of election fraud, that is his job. If they found that there was significant corruption and fraud to overturn the election that would benefit President Trump. It would also show how our elections can be corrupted and needs to be addressed by federal and state governments. That would benefit the country. If the investigations found some fraud and corruption, but not enough to overturn the election, that would not be a benefit to President Trump.
And, just becoming President can be beneficial. Look at Obama. He’s now a multimillionaire. Could he have run for President just for the private interest of getting wealthy and not to improve the country with official acts ?
Actually, IMO, he wanted to be wealthy, powerful and controlling so he could transform our country to communism. Maybe he should be prosecuted for that and many other things.
I’m not a lawyer but I had some of these very same questions when I read this from Jeff Childers:
“I’d like to briefly point out a few things that exasperate me about the discussion of presidential immunity. I’m only a commercial litigation attorney, not a constitutional scholar, and nobody listens to me, but during the entire two hours of oral argument and hundreds of probing Supreme Court questions, it struck me the Justices were largely missing the point.
All nine Justices, including the liberals, seemed shocked by the concept of absolute presidential immunity. Like me, you’ve probably heard the media’s vomitous, broken-record jargon until your ears were bleeding: “nobody is above the law.”
Really? Is that true?
Let’s start with judges. Judges are immune. If a judge makes a mistake, and an innocent person goes to the electric chair, what happens? Nothing. Even if the judge intentionally railroaded the defendant because of racial bias or for any other reason, what happens? Nothing.
How about Congressmen? Congressmen are immune. If they start a war that gets thousands of Americans killed, for illegal reasons (Wag the Dog), what happens? Nothing. (Critics will yap about bribery. So what? How many successful prosecutions have there been? At best, which is a stretch, bribery prosecutions only show a limited exception to Congress’ broad, general immunity.)
How about City Commissioners? City Commissioners are immune. What if a city commissioner violates citizens’ constitutional rights in Florida by mandating vaccines, and an outraged lawyer (me) proves the constitutional violation in court? What happens to the Commissioners?
Nothing.
How about cops? Cops are immune. At least, they enjoy qualified immunity.What happens if a cop negligently mows down grandma while chasing a teenaged jaywalker at irrationally high speeds? Nothing. Immune.
For Heaven’s sake, the entire government is immune. It’s a concept called sovereign immunity. The only way ‘round sovereign immunity is when the government graciously de-immunizes itself by passing a law allowing certain types of claims against government officials. Otherwise, tough luck, starbuck.
Although his immunity produces extremely vexing results in many cases, it is just as necessary as other types of government immunity. The President is not even an ordinary government official. He’s an entire branch of government. Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the Executive Branch. Under the Constitution, the President enjoys powers exceeding those of any other government official, so it seems uncontroversial that he would also enjoy immunity exceeding that of any other government official.
I mean, through his pardon power, the President can even dish out immunity to anybody else, for any crime, no matter how horrible, even mislabeling checks. Why not himself?
Would I love to see Barack Hussein Obama tried for his crimes? A hundred percent. But that would open Pandora’s immunity box and start the political prosecution train going. Next stop, Banana Republic.
What to me was unaccountably absent from yesterday’s oral arguments was any discussion about the mountain of broad immunities already enjoyed by government and whether the President’s immunity should rest somewhere near, if not right at, the peak.
In other words, at minimum, a president should never have less immunity than every other government official. We put up with immunity so judges can rule without fearing personal consequences. We want Presidents to execute their duties boldly and decisively.
Nobody made that point yesterday.
Great list of the immune in our government for making bad/corrupt decisions.
How about the Supreme Court? If there is a 5 to 4 decision on something/ anything, should the 4 that made a bad judgement decision be liable for their mistake or incompetence? When it reaches to the level of the Supreme Court it affects everyone and if they make a wrong judgement shouldn’t they be held accountable?
Have to disagree with SD referring to Bannon and Mike Davis. Davis said yesterday morning that it WOULD be sent back for the lower court to have a hearing on what is “official”. If you are going to criticize that’s fine, but you have to watch the show in it’s entirety too. Just sayin.
TAUTOLOGY – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
NEW Word for my Limited Vocabulary.
USED / ACKNOWLEDGED to “MY FRIEND ”
( as Stated by Special Counsel Jack Smith’s attorney Michael Dreeben who was Brought Out of ” retirement ” by Mueller and NOW Jack Smith )
Why now? Why charge a President now if they all got away with murder in the past?
AirBnB is expecting large-scale government actions and lockdowns to begin on June 6, 2024
Where did you source that?
Thanks.
And the SCOTUS will abandon us like always.
Isn’t the whole point of DEI to put labels on everyone and depending on those labels you achieve equity?
Well if that serves as the foundation of America then its very clear cut: if you have orange hair you are not immune to prosecution. If you have black or blonde hair you are immune. Case closed. /s
This DEI justice form is also socially known as anarchy.
This nonsense would stop if the past presidents ( Hussein, W , Slick Willy and Biden) were drug into court for their wrongdoings.
Much fiddling, parsing, and zoom meetings about insidious strategies to keep the gravy train going as America burns itself out.
Sundance, while you may be correct that the SCOTUS will kick it back to the appellate court for a decision on “private interest acts” or “official acts,” I think that President Trump’s counsel will say they are all “official acts,” and it will end up back at SCOTUS to make that determination.
Now, is it a welcomed delay?
Yes, because it’s all lawfare…even the liberal justices see it. You can hear and see the little cogwheels of their brains calculating the repercussions to Not-a-Republican Bush, Slick Willie, the Kenyan, and Say-It-Isn’t-Joe; along with the deep state and the administrative state.
Come to Jesus meetings being had in dark corners of over-priced coffee houses.
I could see scotus ruling (favorably for djt) on the precise smith indictments and leave the rest for “the next time”. Zero out Smith’s bogus indictment charges. Call it a day and await the next “once in a lifetime” presidential indictment. Not seen this view as of yet.
But it would likely NOT be “once in a lifetime”… in fact, it could become a common occurrence. Because if they don’t rule there’s absolute immunity for almost all actions, then future indictments of future (or past) presidents don’t HAVE to come from the DOJ. Any prosecutor, at any level, anywhere in the country can bring an indictment. Maybe because they feel it’s 100% justified, or maybe just to make a name for themselves. Sure, most of those indictments might quickly get shot down by high-level state or federal courts, but not before the former president (and his legal team) was forced to respond. This kind of HARASSMENT is part of what immunity is intended to prevent.
I think it would discourage future federal indictments. I don’t think anything scotus is looking at is state related.
On another board I read what I think was an excellent explanation of what SCOTUS should do and why. Hopefully, they will.
” Given the importance accorded by the Constitution to an independent central government with a strong chief executive, I can’t imagine the Founders would want to expose a sitting or former President to prosecution for official acts by any of the hundreds of local and federal prosecutors spread across the United States, the sole exception being a President who had been impeached by Congress.
However, as Lin points out, that leaves open the question of an alleged crime committed by a former President when the alleged crime was not discovered until after the President had completed his/her term of office. That question might be best resolved through Congressional legislation.
One of the reasons that the correct answer to this question is:
Presidents only have very limited absolute immunity – specifically for the excessive of article II powers exclusive to the president.
But they have immunity from prosecution for all other acts of any kind official or personal committed WHILE PRESIDENT, until after they have been impeached, convicted by the senate, and removed from office.
Then and only then can any prosecutor indict an ex-president.
What should be clear today is that there is no real danger of a rogue president going helter skelter.
As was pointed out by two justices – the presidential assassination hypothetical is absurd on its face. The military, specifcally, but the rest of the executive is NOT going to execute an illegal order.
Further clear crimes – such as ordering the murder of a political rival will result in impeachment and removal – if they do not the republic is partisan beyond salvation so the entire question is moot.
The real danger is what we are seeing now – political prosecutions of ex presidents.
It is a mistake for SCOTUS to give the power to the courts or itself to decide what is and is not a political prosecution.
I would further note this entire debate is limited to ex-presidents – which is why it has never occurred before.
We have only had a few times in which an ex president ran for office again.
There was never before the MOTIVE to politically prosecute an ex-president.
It is already established that CURRENT presidents have absolute immunity until they are impeached and removed.
The case before the court is NOT about preventing presidents from committing crimes while in office.
The impediments to that are: those in the executive swore to uphold the constitution and are not permitted to execute an illegal or unconstitutional order.
They are subject to prosecution if they do.
The president is subject to impeachment and removal – not just for actual criminal acts, but for pretty much anything the house and senate agree warrants impeachment and removal.
The current supreme court debate is NOT over what immunity Presidents have – that is ALREADY established.
It is not about thwarting crimes that might take place, it is not about the survival of the republic.
It is ALREADY true that you can not prosecute a president for anything until they are an ex-president.
All the nonsense about the president trying to stay in power is idiocy – If the president stages a coup to stay in power and succeeds – which is structurally impossible in the US unless massive portions of the federal government are corrupt – then not just the president has gone completely lawless.
If he succeeds in a coup – he must be impeached and removed.
Put simply – absolute presidential immunity for presidents already exists.
The question before the supreme court is NOT about preventing anything.
It is about politically punishing an ex-president that you were unable to impeach and remove.
The worst case scenario for absolute immunity is that an ex president gets away with a crime.
With near certainty it will almost always be a small crime, or it will be a big crime that has near universal support.
A president is not likely to get away with executing a political rival (as president) unless the political rival is a terrorist caught in the act.
A president who rigs an election and succeeds – is still president.
A president who rigs an election and fails – is no longer president.
The world will not end if the winners of the election are not able to extract revenge.
They will have the power to punish everyone who was involved in that alleged election rigging.
The point is that presidential immunity that can not be overcome without impeachment and removal is no threat to the country.
No case will ever arrise until any real threat has passed.
While the lack of presidential immunity for ex-presidents WILL result in more and more politicization of the courts.
If you honestly believe that, the prosecution of Trump is not at all political and is purely
legitimate.
Allowing it to go forward will guarantee that political prosecutions WILL come and very soon.
Barring it means that occasionally some president will get away with some small abuse of power that fails.
The thought that Chutkin, an Obama appointee and Hunter Biden colleague would be determining what is official versus personal accountability doesn’t make me feel confident that she is capable of objectivity and constitutionality.
Especially when I see the absolutely outrageous sentences she meted out to many innocent J6ers.
She makes my stomach
churn.
She is one of the first who should be thrown off the bench! 💁🏻♀️
Exactly! Sending the matter back to Bolshevik Immigrant Judge Chutkan and three clueless female Appeals Court Judges who, in total, got the question of Presidential Immunity completely WRONG sounds like a recipe for disaster and a complete waste of time!
On the other, the four idiot aparaticks will get the question completely wrong and obviously rule against President Trump so the matter will land in the lap of the Supreme Court to try again!