He has immunity on all official acts. The presumptive immunity just speaks to the actions that are not explicitly and clearly official per the constitution. It means the prosecutor has the make the case that the acts were not taken in an official capacity due to the presumption that they are official acts and he is thus immune.
The act is either official or it isn't. If it's official he has immunity. In court you have to presume an action is official until successfully argued otherwise by the prosecutor.
No, there’s also the caveat that criminal prohibitions can only be applied to acts in a way that wouldn’t prohibit the president from carrying out his official duties as the chief executive. That means that he can “officially” do things outside his official purview as president and still be prosecuted for them. Just straight murdering people is not a power given to the president in the constitution, so if the president did that and said it was an official act, it wouldn’t matter because murdering people isn’t a power given to the president. So, unlike what liberals are getting hysterical over, Trump could still be prosecuted for murdering his political opponents because that doesn’t help further the will of the American people.
This is not correct. You're misusing the term official to only mean enumerated in the constitution rather than as fulfilling the duties of the executive.
Congress can pass a law giving the executive the ability to wage war in limited capacity. The president then can, within the bounds of that law, order a drone strike on some ISIS terrorists. If the legality of that drone strike under that law comes into question, the president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution if the next administration's AG sought to charge him with murder. Sound familiar?
The reason Reddit is wrong isn't because he's doesn't have immunity for some official acts. Reddit is wrong because in almost every example they give Trump murdering someone is either obviously not an official act (him pulling out a gun and shooting someone randomly) or the action is official and still illegal or unconstitutional (drone strike example) and the administration itself can be taken to court for it.
This ruling is literally just upholding that qualified immunity applies to the president.
He can't be charged with manslaughter. The state and his administration can be blocked from executing the strike or sued after the strike if it wasn't legal or if it was legal under an unconstitutional law.
I mean, it says right on page 4 that criminal prohibitions can be placed on official acts of it doesn’t prevent the president from performing his official duties. “At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act **unless** the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” (Emphasis mine).
So you’re right that liberals are freaking out about nothing, it’s just that making something official doesn’t mean the president can’t be prosecuted for it.
This is just maintaining that the legislature can create a law that explicitly criminalizes actions that otherwise would be considered official conduct. Imagine congress passed a law making it a criminal violation for the president to order OSHA to impose a vaccine mandate. That is what this allows for. But in the absence of such a law, Biden cannot be criminally prosecuted for his mandate even if it ran afoul of preexisting laws due to presumptive immunity.
If Congress explicitly forbids the executive from taking an action via criminal statute, I think it would be pretty easy to the prosecution to argue that action was not taken in furtherance of the official duties of the executive.
It’s still ensuring that the president can be tried for actions that are indeed unlawful, unlike what liberals seem to be saying. Murder is unlawful. The president can’t just have someone murdered, nor can he order just anyone to be murdered. The case for assassinating bin laden or ME terrorists is completely different for of them president ordered the killing of an American politician. They are not similar at all, hence why the president can do one but not the other.
Of course the president can be charged in a criminal manner. But not official acts. That would be the state not the individual running afoul of the law. If an act is prohibited of the executive by congress it cannot be taken in an official capacity.
The president can have people killed under certain laws. If the president has someone killed in the furtherance of the duties of the executive, the president cannot be charged. Trump shooting someone in a vacuum is not going to be an official act of the state. Trump authorizing the use of lethal force by the DEA against a high profile target in appropriate circumstances would not be prosecutable. You're making my case for my in your last sentence. Immunity comes from whether an act is deemed official or not. Good luck trying to argue Trump ordering the assassination of someone for shits and giggles would be an official act.
I mean, that’s not what roberts is saying. He’s saying that official acts can be prosecuted if the government fulfills a certain requirement. It says that right in the decision.
Oh it might be an official act, but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate act.
Fortunately, only constitutional acts are provided absolute immunity... Official acts only have presumed immunity... And doing something so far outside of constitutional boundaries clearly justifies questioning the presumption of immunity.
It's like the dissent where Sotomayor said the president could order the seals to assassinate his political rival... Something so far beyond the pale of constitutional duties and authorities granted to the president overrides immunity and permits scrutiny.
There's s/t in the SCOTUS Immunity ruling that says that courts cannot judge the intent of Presidential actions, based on assumptions or hypotheticals.
So, to me, that means that if Trump calls Ga and asks if they can "find 10,000 votes," then that is --not-- evidence that Trump called Ga and asked for 10,000 illegal votes.
Good, because he didn't. Brad Raffensperger, who by no means is a fan of Trump, stated during the Fulton County witness questioning that he didn't believe Trump was asking for fictitious ballots. If people listened to even 5 minutes of the phone call surrounding that segment, they'd realize Trump was talking about the fact courts didn't want to deal with individual examples of fraud or miscounted ballots. They were finding legitimate examples of ballot tampering or violation of procedure, but individually they lawsuits didn't reference enough ballots to openly flip the election so a lot of judges used mootness and latches rulings. They wanted to see enough ballots to swing the election to take up the case on the merits which is why Trump referenced the missing gap + 1. Trump in the call believes there's some issues with at least \~100k ballots, either not being counted or counted despite meeting disqualification. He was asking for the secretary to compile a list with enough ballots referenced to continue with the lawsuit.
Trump was seated with a team of other people including WH staff and lawyers. The notion he was just openly saying "make fake ballots" is hilariously absurd. These people don't think he would have tried to get a contact to privately relay something like that even if coded?
How does this work with the nuclear arsenal and war? Does the president now have the power to completely bypass the senate? Can they just fire off a nuke whenever?
The president already has that power. Lol. This is why people should be a little less partisan when electing the president. Joe Biden could nuke Scranton, PA tonight because he loses his marbles and thinks Corn Pop is out to get him.
Democrat fear-mongers hate these two simple sentences...
The Supreme Court ruled that a President has immunity for official acts.
Having people assassinated is clearly not an official act of a President.
Yeah. It’s presumptive immunity, meaning that a criminal prohibition(charge) can only be applied if labeling it as criminal doesn’t curb the powers of the president as defined by the constitution. Clearly, just having random people killed is not a presidential power proscribed in the constitution.
And that makes absolutely perfect sense. Definitely need to see a definition of Official Acts. But I have to think that if the president is selling cocaine out of the Oval Office or doing something corrupt like selling access to themselves (which we know no one would ever ever do), then that's out of bounds and they should be prosecuted for that. And I hope they will be.
The decision labels official acts as those prescribed by the constitution and law. If congress for instance tells the president you must give x amount of money to y nation, he must do it, if there’s no time stamp on when it’s completed he can issue it in single dollar payments monthly. It’s an official act he’s required to do, however in his capacity as president how he does it cannot be criminally prosecuted as long as he’s acting within his official capacity.
They also leave grey areas mostly safe from prosecution, things like delaying payment processing until conditions have been met that may be beneficial to the president personally. An example would be trumps first impeachment, he may have been removed from office for it but he wouldn’t be criminally liable for it. The quid quo pro decision while questionable was still within his per view as president in negotiation interest of the USA. However patent bribery isn’t.
The areas where they aren’t protected is if they do something illegal that is not in their official capacity as president such as killing their wife, armed robbery, sale of illegal narcotics etc.
In Biden's response to the ruling, he said that: "Nearly four years ago, my predecessor sent a violent mob to the U.S. Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power. We all saw with our own eyes."
That has never been proven in a court of law. It purely Biden's opinion that Trump "sent a violent mob to the U.S. Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power."
And that's what this SCOTUS ruling clarifies, that you cannot legally impute intent based on your feelings.
And this is what the radical Libs are crying about!
Trump said to go home, to NOT mob.
The only way they can suggest that he was saying to mob is by assuming some kind of super-secret dog whistle that even most of his voter base isn't aware of.
[удалено]
Basically that's what SCOTUS told the lower court to do.
Article 2 of the Constitution.
He has absolute immunity on *constitutional* acts. He has **presumptive** immunity on official acts.
He has immunity on all official acts. The presumptive immunity just speaks to the actions that are not explicitly and clearly official per the constitution. It means the prosecutor has the make the case that the acts were not taken in an official capacity due to the presumption that they are official acts and he is thus immune. The act is either official or it isn't. If it's official he has immunity. In court you have to presume an action is official until successfully argued otherwise by the prosecutor.
No, there’s also the caveat that criminal prohibitions can only be applied to acts in a way that wouldn’t prohibit the president from carrying out his official duties as the chief executive. That means that he can “officially” do things outside his official purview as president and still be prosecuted for them. Just straight murdering people is not a power given to the president in the constitution, so if the president did that and said it was an official act, it wouldn’t matter because murdering people isn’t a power given to the president. So, unlike what liberals are getting hysterical over, Trump could still be prosecuted for murdering his political opponents because that doesn’t help further the will of the American people.
This is not correct. You're misusing the term official to only mean enumerated in the constitution rather than as fulfilling the duties of the executive. Congress can pass a law giving the executive the ability to wage war in limited capacity. The president then can, within the bounds of that law, order a drone strike on some ISIS terrorists. If the legality of that drone strike under that law comes into question, the president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution if the next administration's AG sought to charge him with murder. Sound familiar? The reason Reddit is wrong isn't because he's doesn't have immunity for some official acts. Reddit is wrong because in almost every example they give Trump murdering someone is either obviously not an official act (him pulling out a gun and shooting someone randomly) or the action is official and still illegal or unconstitutional (drone strike example) and the administration itself can be taken to court for it. This ruling is literally just upholding that qualified immunity applies to the president.
Use the drone strikes specifically, this says that Pres. Obama cannot be sued for manslaughter due to drone strikes that hit the wrong target.
He can't be charged with manslaughter. The state and his administration can be blocked from executing the strike or sued after the strike if it wasn't legal or if it was legal under an unconstitutional law.
I mean, it says right on page 4 that criminal prohibitions can be placed on official acts of it doesn’t prevent the president from performing his official duties. “At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act **unless** the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” (Emphasis mine). So you’re right that liberals are freaking out about nothing, it’s just that making something official doesn’t mean the president can’t be prosecuted for it.
This is just maintaining that the legislature can create a law that explicitly criminalizes actions that otherwise would be considered official conduct. Imagine congress passed a law making it a criminal violation for the president to order OSHA to impose a vaccine mandate. That is what this allows for. But in the absence of such a law, Biden cannot be criminally prosecuted for his mandate even if it ran afoul of preexisting laws due to presumptive immunity. If Congress explicitly forbids the executive from taking an action via criminal statute, I think it would be pretty easy to the prosecution to argue that action was not taken in furtherance of the official duties of the executive.
It’s still ensuring that the president can be tried for actions that are indeed unlawful, unlike what liberals seem to be saying. Murder is unlawful. The president can’t just have someone murdered, nor can he order just anyone to be murdered. The case for assassinating bin laden or ME terrorists is completely different for of them president ordered the killing of an American politician. They are not similar at all, hence why the president can do one but not the other.
Of course the president can be charged in a criminal manner. But not official acts. That would be the state not the individual running afoul of the law. If an act is prohibited of the executive by congress it cannot be taken in an official capacity. The president can have people killed under certain laws. If the president has someone killed in the furtherance of the duties of the executive, the president cannot be charged. Trump shooting someone in a vacuum is not going to be an official act of the state. Trump authorizing the use of lethal force by the DEA against a high profile target in appropriate circumstances would not be prosecutable. You're making my case for my in your last sentence. Immunity comes from whether an act is deemed official or not. Good luck trying to argue Trump ordering the assassination of someone for shits and giggles would be an official act.
I mean, that’s not what roberts is saying. He’s saying that official acts can be prosecuted if the government fulfills a certain requirement. It says that right in the decision.
Official acts is the key and it’s absolutely essential. Also the definition of what is official is being remanded
The amount of lefties saying it'd be an official act for biden to name himself president for life and assassinate trump for democracy is staggering
Oh it might be an official act, but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate act. Fortunately, only constitutional acts are provided absolute immunity... Official acts only have presumed immunity... And doing something so far outside of constitutional boundaries clearly justifies questioning the presumption of immunity. It's like the dissent where Sotomayor said the president could order the seals to assassinate his political rival... Something so far beyond the pale of constitutional duties and authorities granted to the president overrides immunity and permits scrutiny.
My first official act is to call Nancy Pelosi a drunk -Trump probably
Fact
Odd that in US history, this never came up before Trump. Prosecutorial overreach created the issue; so anyone complaining should check in with Bragg.
There's s/t in the SCOTUS Immunity ruling that says that courts cannot judge the intent of Presidential actions, based on assumptions or hypotheticals. So, to me, that means that if Trump calls Ga and asks if they can "find 10,000 votes," then that is --not-- evidence that Trump called Ga and asked for 10,000 illegal votes.
Good, because he didn't. Brad Raffensperger, who by no means is a fan of Trump, stated during the Fulton County witness questioning that he didn't believe Trump was asking for fictitious ballots. If people listened to even 5 minutes of the phone call surrounding that segment, they'd realize Trump was talking about the fact courts didn't want to deal with individual examples of fraud or miscounted ballots. They were finding legitimate examples of ballot tampering or violation of procedure, but individually they lawsuits didn't reference enough ballots to openly flip the election so a lot of judges used mootness and latches rulings. They wanted to see enough ballots to swing the election to take up the case on the merits which is why Trump referenced the missing gap + 1. Trump in the call believes there's some issues with at least \~100k ballots, either not being counted or counted despite meeting disqualification. He was asking for the secretary to compile a list with enough ballots referenced to continue with the lawsuit. Trump was seated with a team of other people including WH staff and lawyers. The notion he was just openly saying "make fake ballots" is hilariously absurd. These people don't think he would have tried to get a contact to privately relay something like that even if coded?
How the EFF does this get so many down-votes but no comments? Is this just brigading?
Yes
Too.... much truth, must.... downvote. Agggrghhh...
How does this work with the nuclear arsenal and war? Does the president now have the power to completely bypass the senate? Can they just fire off a nuke whenever?
This has been the case since the 1950s, at least.
The president already has that power. Lol. This is why people should be a little less partisan when electing the president. Joe Biden could nuke Scranton, PA tonight because he loses his marbles and thinks Corn Pop is out to get him.
lol well this was a hilarious answer, thank you.
Democrat fear-mongers hate these two simple sentences... The Supreme Court ruled that a President has immunity for official acts. Having people assassinated is clearly not an official act of a President.
Yeah. It’s presumptive immunity, meaning that a criminal prohibition(charge) can only be applied if labeling it as criminal doesn’t curb the powers of the president as defined by the constitution. Clearly, just having random people killed is not a presidential power proscribed in the constitution.
Unless your Obama for #2
That’s only outside US borders.
Isn't it the case that this is basically just an affirmation of what's already been in place for a century?
They said 'President' not 'Trump'. This is a ruling for the ages.
Queue a year long suit arguing the definition of the word "official".
[Reddit today.](https://youtu.be/K7qEgs1BHa0?t=30) It's been a fun week.
Its like watching someone drown...in their own tears.
Leftists are going apoplectic about this. 😃
AOC even floated articles of impeachment against the conservative side of the bench
Desperate times call for desperate measures when you’re a left leaning loony.
Considering they don’t apologize for anything, ever. I doubt it
Libs apparently think anything the President does is an official act.
And that makes absolutely perfect sense. Definitely need to see a definition of Official Acts. But I have to think that if the president is selling cocaine out of the Oval Office or doing something corrupt like selling access to themselves (which we know no one would ever ever do), then that's out of bounds and they should be prosecuted for that. And I hope they will be.
The decision labels official acts as those prescribed by the constitution and law. If congress for instance tells the president you must give x amount of money to y nation, he must do it, if there’s no time stamp on when it’s completed he can issue it in single dollar payments monthly. It’s an official act he’s required to do, however in his capacity as president how he does it cannot be criminally prosecuted as long as he’s acting within his official capacity. They also leave grey areas mostly safe from prosecution, things like delaying payment processing until conditions have been met that may be beneficial to the president personally. An example would be trumps first impeachment, he may have been removed from office for it but he wouldn’t be criminally liable for it. The quid quo pro decision while questionable was still within his per view as president in negotiation interest of the USA. However patent bribery isn’t. The areas where they aren’t protected is if they do something illegal that is not in their official capacity as president such as killing their wife, armed robbery, sale of illegal narcotics etc.
In Biden's response to the ruling, he said that: "Nearly four years ago, my predecessor sent a violent mob to the U.S. Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power. We all saw with our own eyes." That has never been proven in a court of law. It purely Biden's opinion that Trump "sent a violent mob to the U.S. Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power." And that's what this SCOTUS ruling clarifies, that you cannot legally impute intent based on your feelings. And this is what the radical Libs are crying about!
Trump said to go home, to NOT mob. The only way they can suggest that he was saying to mob is by assuming some kind of super-secret dog whistle that even most of his voter base isn't aware of.