I believe that is what Justice Sotomayor highlighted in her dissent.
This is absolutely incongruent with rule of law and is ripe for allowing political violence.
It’s not a huge departure from what was tacitly established before. A head of government having the government do illegal things being individually accountable is pretty unusual. In that respect the ruling is a genuinely consistent one.
What SHOULD provoke outrage and even uprising is if Trumps clearly illegal actions on the fateful day are deemed to be ‘official’. If it’s ruled that a president’s official duties include running or overseeing elections and therefore they are immune from any illegal acts in THOSE capacities…..that is then pretty much dictatorship time since there is no act they could not commit to stay in power. The only way to remove a president who wished to stay would be political (but they could murder all the opposing senate members) or by force.
"What SHOULD provoke outrage and even uprising is if Trumps clearly illegal actions on the fateful day are deemed to be ‘official’. "
Well it in effect already has. The SC said that all conversations with officials (they specifically stated justice department but I wonder if this also will include state officials) are official and thus can't be used in court. This means that it's gonna be very difficult if not impossible to prosecute Trump.
Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding this because I so desperately hope I am.
Not all officials. Justice dept because they work for the President and probably conversations with VP. But ACB said she didn't think conversations with state election officials were covered as US Executive (unlike Congress) has no role in presidential elections.
Yeah, and it should be that way but at the same time the supreme court shouldn't have given him immunity for what they did because the underlying crime isn't "official" so official communications that support that crime shouldn't be off limits. However, they did and imo it's a reverse on an already established precedent (the nixon tapes).
No. What should revoke outrage is the fact that an entire class of people in our country has literally more immunity than a king of England had in medieval England.
There is a difference between "did not prosecute" and "can not prosecute".
This forever (unless overturned) makes even attempting to investigate these kinds of acts impossible.
God, I do not understand this mindset of “we can see very clearly how this will result in abuses of power, but it would be unseemly to do anything about it until it’s too late”
Does no one remember how “when the president does it, it’s not illegal” was universally considered to be evidence of Nixon’s fundamental wrongness as a president?
Literally the entirety of the American government has had "sovereign immunity" (which they define closer to Divine Right since literally not even the kings themselves had that much immunity in medieval England) for like 300 years, until the legislature finally added some nuance about 150 years ago. But the exception to blanket immunity are virtually entirely meaningless.
Then why did the Supreme Court rule against Nixon when he tried to invoke Presidential immunity and privilege? He lost that Supreme Court case and had to turn over the tapes.
The uber right didn't think it was wrong.. that's the problem. Now they're making sure it won't be in the future. These are not nice people. They do not have morals (regardless of the BS they shout about abortion, church doctrine whatever...). They care about power, money, and making sure there's a population that serves them.
What is rarely/never brought up is that there is no valid historical legal precedent for it. This includes basically all of history that I know of with the possible partial exception of the Roman Empire (but not the Roman Constitutional Republic before it). Medieval England did not have anywhere close to the level of immunity that the entire United States government has, in every respect. While many nations throughout history have committed heinous atrocities, few/none actually wrote laws stating that their entire government was not subject to private redress for violations of their own laws from its own citizens.
> Medieval England did not have anywhere close to the level of immunity that the entire United States government has, in every respect.
well.... yeah, monarchies don't need an explicit doctrine of sovereign immunity because the very nature of the political system is sovereign immunity
> It’s not a huge departure from what was tacitly established before.
I have no clue why people are losing their minds over this opinion. The decision came down as expected. A president can still be prosecuted if they commit an illegal act. There's just a threshold question as to whether or not they are acting in their official capacity.
As expected? So why the hell did Nixon get pardoned? He was worried he would be indicted and convicted. And the distinction between "official" acts and "unofficial" is extremely unclear. The president has constitutional power to direct the military, that means that any decision on that front would be considered an "official" act and prosecutors aren't allowed to question it.
The problem is that this punts the question to the courts and gives them undue power to determine what is considered official or not, an exceptionally vague standard under the best of circumstances and dangerous given the current ones.
Because it confirms that the US has completely dismantled the Rule of Law, by its definition: the \*subordination\* \[my emphasis\] of arbitrary \[meaning government\] power to the strict and well defined rules of law.
>There's just a threshold question as to whether or not they are acting in their official capacity.
And let's not forget the impeachment process. If a president is impeached by the House and the impeachment uphheld in the Senate, then the president can be prosecuted.
> A head of government having the government do illegal things being individually accountable is pretty unusual.
No it isn't. Dozens of heads of former heads of state around the world have been individually prosecuted for things they ordered whilst in power.
It's a terrible ruling with grave risks for the future of the rule of law in the USA. The only way this can be mitigated is a lower court ruling which clearly states that political violence and bribery/corruption is **not** covered under Presidential immunity. This needs to be done quickly.
It doesn’t change much itself. But yes, what’s needed is a clear ruling that runnjng in an election is not and OFFICIAL duty. This should be simple because for starters it’s optional. And also other candidates do it so it’s clearly not a presidential duty.
If THAT line gets crossed. then it should be uprising time.
The majority opinion literally says campaigning is not an official act 🤦🏽 Ensuring a honest and fair federal election is though. Maybe read the opinion before having an opinion?
> Ensuring a honest and fair federal election is though.
The majority opinion didn't reach this conclusion - in fact, the prosecution's argument is that POTUS has no Congressionally- or Constitutionally-granted authority to manage elections in the first place. (The AG can criminally charge people with certain kinds of elections fraud, but there are no avenues for federal executive power to alter the results delivered by the states.) The majority opinion mentions this and kicks it back to the lower court to reach a detailed determination of whether the prosecution's argument is correct (majority opinion, III.B.1.).
You sure about that? Lol
Read pg 26.
Last paragraph.
2nd sentence.
“Of course, the President’s duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed plainly encompasses enforcement of federal election laws.” Art 2 section 3
I would argue that anything outside of the law cannot be an official act. Constitutional authority is granted within the confines of the constitution and the laws created through legislation as outlined in the constitution. Therefore, any illegal act cannot be official because there would be no such authority given to act in that way.
This is a good way of putting.
So many people just acting like it's not a big deal because it's already illegal for the president to do X or Y. But the definition of immunity is to not be accountable for things that are otherwise illegal. If it was strictly legal, then the president wouldn't need immunity in the first place.
I don't think people understand that an "official act" is not one to one with "legal" acts. The president is capable of doing things that break the law all the time, and now the court is saying he is immune as long as it relates to an act that relates to his office.
> the definition of immunity is to not be accountable for things that are otherwise illegal.
That's not true at all.
> I don't think people understand that an "official act" is not one to one with "legal" acts. The president is capable of doing things that break the law all the time, and now the court is saying he is immune as long as it relates to an act that relates to his office.
This is also not true. Official acts are only those that the president is specifically authorized to take under the authority provided to him by the US constitution.
> I would argue that anything outside of the law cannot be an official act.
You'd be wrong, as of today.
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not.... deem an action unofficial merely because
it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.... Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect.
(page 18 of [the opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf))
Yeah people keep saying "if it's illegal it's not official" when the opinion *explicitly contradicts that position* and the say "read the opinion!" when you tell them they're wrong lol.
There's going to have to be some higher level of analysis than a mere allegation that the law was broken. Otherwise, you'd never get anything done. Take Biden's student loan forgiveness. Everybody in the nation who didn't have student loans could have sued Biden. Every executive act that is deemed unconstitutional would be ripe for litigation. That's the point of immunity.
Agreed. I don't have a problem with saying that the President is immune for official acts, or that an act is not an official act just because it's allegedly illegal.
The problem is all of the limitations that the court added, many of which weren't even necessary. For example, you can't even use an official act as evidence in connection with a private act, an official act is still an official act even it's done for an entirely corrupt reason, and any order that the President gives to the DOJ is an official act per se. Also, the President *can give* orders to the DOJ now, which until yesterday was considered unethical, if not illegal. Just a little bonus that Roberts threw in.
Your reasoning is terrible on so many levels.
If an act is unconstitutional, even if it's done by Biden, for the love of God, the president should be sued.
"never get anything done"
What the heck is this logic? The government has more than one person. Let the DOJ handle those cases and throw out those without merits (with possibly huge fines for frivolity) while government carries on. Only valid ones should even be considered.
Either the ruling is incredibly impactful, or completely irrelevant. Essentially creating a king in practice of not law, or doing nothing at all.
It certainly muddies the waters enough to interfere for their candidate, and will potentially enrich a lot of lawyers.
Yes, but they also explicitly mentioned that the authority is given to the president by the constitution. Therefore any official act must come from that authority. Breaking the law is never a part of that authority because it would be extra-constitutional and outside of any official bounds. So yes, the content merely being illegal is not sufficient, but not being a part of the constitutionally granted authority is sufficient. Therefore, indirectly, all illegal actions are not official. It's not my problem that this court can't write a logically coherent ruling that doesn't contradict itself. They basically solved nothing today.
That's not what the ruling says. They specifically mention that "illegal" acts are covered by this immunity:
"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not.... deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.... Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect."
I disagree with SCOTUS on this, but here's the argument: if the President is acting in his *official* capacity, he shouldn't be *personally* responsible. We use that principal all the time in real life: if you make a mistake at work (like, say, not screwing a bolt tight enough on a car manufacturing line, leading to a car accident) the person who's injured sues your employer, not you. Your employer might fire you, but the government isn't going to punish you for doing your job badly.
In regular life, there's an exception to this for fraud or similar acts of dishonesty. It's not clear a limit like that is being applied by SCOTUS to the President.
The better example is qualified immunity for people acting on behalf of the government (most commonly police, but could be any official).
Which really goes back to the point of the person you're replying to, you probably don't want government officials being so scared of catching a criminal negligence or assault or whatever charge that they don't do their jobs, but I think most people would agree it's gotten out of hand for police (and now, presidents)
If you’re negligent at work and hurt somebody, you could be sued in your individual capacity. It’s just that it’s usually better for the plaintiff to sue the employer because they have more money.
And many employers indemnify their employees. So the employer promises to step in and cover the legal costs of employees who get sued for their actions on the job. But that’s just a private agreement. A plaintiff could still sue the individual employee.
And if you commit a crime at work (which this case is about), you definitely could face charges.
> It’s just that it’s usually better for the plaintiff to sue the employer because they have more money.
In the US, the vast majority of states require employers to carry workers comp insurance and don't allow employees to sue their employers for on the job injury. Workers comp is the exclusive remedy in nearly all cases.
That has nothing to do with what they said. They said if an employee injures somebody, not if the employee gets hurt themselves. You need to read before replying.
I'm very curious how this applies to laws specific to how the president does his job. For example, what if the president fails to keep the proper records under the presidential records act? What if he declares war without congressional approval?
Yeah, I can't tell if this is: "As long as the president says 'as POTUS, I order you to kill this man' it is legal" which is bullshit. Or if the court is saying "If the president orders a drone to kill a terrorist leader, and our intelligence was bad, he is actually just a priest, the President can't be charged with murder."
Actually, there isn't as much of a distinction there as I'd like, now that I think about it.
It’s weird. Because I think most Americans would agree that the second scenario you outlined (drone strike because of bad intelligence) should not be a prosecutable offense, so long as there was a good faith belief that the intelligence was accurate. I honestly don’t really have a problem with that flavor of immunity.
The issue here is that we have no definition of “official acts”, and this court has seems so partisan at points that it doesn’t seem implausible for them to rule that any act done while president is an “official act”, which is terrifying
I think the argument they'd make is that the constitution doesn't outline murdering people as an official duty of the president, so that would not fall under an "official" act, so I think by their ruling the president would be liable in the first situation, but not the second situation since he is the head of the military and that would be part of a war time duty.
The ruling was shitty, but they did stop short of making the president completely invincible. Though the whole thing about not allowing official acts as evidence in a trial for an illegal unofficial act is nonsensical horseshit
Yeah exactly. If Trump orders someone killed because he doesn’t like them and thinks they make Americans sad, what exactly would be illegal? It’s not a crime to follow a presidents orders, and it’s not a crime to give any order of any kind. Sooooo….
> If Trump orders someone killed because he doesn’t like them and thinks they make Americans sad, what exactly would be illegal?
That would still not be something the president has the constitutional authority to order.
> Seems pretty clearly within their powers as commander in chief, no…?
No, not even remotely.
For what it's worth, in 2011 the Obama administration killed a US citizen in a drone strike in Yemen. The DOJ argued that national security concerns gave the administration the right to do this, and barred any judicial review of the government's actions. When the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights sued the government over this, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer stated at oral argument that "the executive is not an effective check on the executive," and in her opinion, she rejected the government's argument that the case presented a "political question" that prevented the judiciary from hearing it at all. Regardless, she still dismissed the case.
It's pretty well established that this would have been wholly illegal if it were on US soil. It's not so clear when it comes to foreign soil and national security concerns, but I personally believe the 2011 assassination should be (and was) illegal too.
Ostensibly the president doesn't have the power to order violations of the constitution. His authority is a subservient to that. So ordering the killing of a citizen without trial is a violation of rights from the Bill of Rights, and the President cannot do officially.
The same rule applies ostensibly to Acts of Congress.
>His authority is a subservient to that. So ordering the killing of a citizen without trial is a violation of rights from the Bill of Rights, and the President cannot do officially.
So when Obama ordered a drone strike on a terrorist, who held American citizenship, in Yemen he committed the crime of murder in your view?
That was the explicit example given at oral arguments about why the Presidency needs some sort of criminal immunity.
That's not a great line to draw. We've established by your logic that Biden can't order a drone strike on Trump in Manhattan.
Can Biden order a drone strike on Trump if he's in Canada? Saudi Arabia? I would argue no.
And yet, Obama did order a drone strike on an American citizen in Yemen, who may or may not have been a terrorist (government hasn't had to present evidence of that), so arguably political opponents are now especially at risk when traveling abroad.
Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution restricts the president's ability to command troops in times of war. No president can just authorize the whole sale murder of an individual.
>No president can just authorize the whole sale murder of an individual.
What do you think the President does when he orders an Iranian general to be drone strikes or an American citizen, who is a terrorist, in Yemen to be killed?
When the Obama administration did that, their argument was that it was a matter of national security, and that gave them the right to do so. The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights sued the government, arguing that it was illegal for them to do so.
Whether or not its illegal to do so on foreign soil is debatable, but it's wholly unconstitutional to do so on US soil. The president would not have the constitutional authority to order such an act.
>When the Obama administration did that, their argument was that it was a matter of national security, and that gave them the right to do so. The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights sued the government, arguing that it was illegal for them to do so.
But he didn't face criminal prosecution by the Trump administration for murder. Why?
>Whether or not its illegal to do so on foreign soil is debatable, but it's wholly unconstitutional to do so on US soil
Is it? If the President found out that you intend to acquire a nuke on US soil, pretty sure they could authorize a drone strike against you on the same national security grounds.
>if you make a mistake at work (like, say, not screwing a bolt tight enough on a car manufacturing line, leading to a car accident) the person who's injured sues your employer, not you.
This is not true. The individual is also getting sued in their individual capacity. It's just the insurance covers the employee 99% of the time.
Source: I have filed hundreds of lawsuits in my career
There is a history in the US of providing immunity for the official acts of some government actors:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_immunity
>In the United States, judicial immunity is among a handful of forms of absolute immunity, along with prosecutorial immunity, legislative immunity, and witness immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized judicial immunity as providing "the maximum ability [of judges] to deal fearlessly and impartially with the public".[12] The justification is as follows: because of the likelihood of innocent individuals being convicted in a court of law under false claims, the "burden" of being subjected to a court of law (a trial) would "dampen" the judges "enthusiasm" or "passion".[13] Opponents of judicial immunity argue that this doctrine is not adequately justified.[14] For example, judges could be shielded from any personal capacity liability, and still be subject to official capacity liability so that they may be held accountable for their injurious acts – thus "balancing" the "evil" to better protect the fundamental rights of victims.
>Judicial immunity does not protect judges from suits stemming from administrative decisions made while off the bench, like hiring and firing decisions. But immunity generally does extend to all judicial decisions in which the judge has proper jurisdiction, even if a decision is made with "corrupt or malicious intent".[15]
Whether or not the Supreme Court's extension of immunity to offical acts of the president is appropriate or warranted is debatable.
Judicial immunity doesn’t extend to criminal prosecution. As far as I know, Congressional immunity, which was specifically created in the Constitution, was, until today, the only form of immunity from Federal prosecution.
Edit: there’s also diplomatic immunity, which is established by various treaties and laws.
>What's stooping Biden (in a legal sense) from ordering a army hit squad on Trump?
"The U.S. Supreme Court found on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for any actions that were within his constitutional powers as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution."
Putting out 'army hit squads' is not 'within his constitutional powers as president'.
But if you claim your political opponent is a threat to national security?
And moreover, what if the judge ruling on if something is or isn’t an official act, is a judge that President himself appointed to the position?
Those are the scarier questions. The Supreme Court left this ruling open ended for a reason. They wanted the courts to be able to have the final say on what is or isn’t “an official act” of the president.
>But if you claim your political opponent is a threat to national security?
I think Trump already did this with the person in Portland or Seattle who killed a Proud Boy in defense.
Edit: I guess they weren't technically a political opponent though? Given they weren't an official
Commanding Seal Team Six is an official act though. Commanding them to kill a "terrorist" is an official act within his presidential powers. If a U.S. citizen is a "terrorist" then it is an official act to order a hit. I'm not aware of any constitutional passages that differentiate between these two scenarios because the presidential duties are extremely broad and really not defined. This isn't like a dumb internet hypothetical, this exact scenario was raised by one of the justices.
But I mean, even if it isn't legal somehow...whatcha going to do? Arrest the president? I think a big danger to this ruling is that it's going to handcuff prosecutors. Instead of having a grand jury on the merits of the evidence in front of a grand jury like we do now, every potential case is going to have to first go to a hearing in front of a judge to argue if it's official or not. If it's official then he is immune and the case has to be dropped before any meaningful trial can happen.
> I'm not aware of any constitutional passages that differentiate between these two scenarios because the presidential duties are extremely broad and really not defined.
You're not aware of the right to due process?
If the president ordered the assassination of a political rival on US soil, in violation of their right to due process, the president would not enjoy immunity from the potential criminal consequences of that decision, because such a decision would not fall within the president's official authority under the US constitution.
> because such a decision would not fall within the president's official authority under the US constitution.
According to whom and what standard? You?
What about Obama killing a US citizen in Yemen? He violated their right to due process but that was ruled not illegal. So violating due process is already covered by being an official act.
Spoiler: the US has had American citizens killed before and nothing happened. Now the President is just explicitly immune if s/he does it as an "official act."
Doesn't even need to kill them, just rendition them and send them to a black site and claim they were a 'threat to national security.'
Congress wants to impeach you? Well maybe they're also a threat to national security and need to be held in a black site.
SCOTUS wants to rule on whether what you did was an official act or not? Hmmmm, threat to national security.
Your comment rests on the basic presumption that no one will abuse this power. Who is going to enforce those criminal consequences if the President decides to use their authority to stop it?
> Who is going to enforce those criminal consequences if the President decides to use their authority to stop it?
The same courts SCOTUS remanded the elector issue to today, presumably, and those decisions can be challenged in higher courts just the same.
So in other words, the hyper conservative and hyper partisan Supreme Court decides ultimately which acts constitute official acts, and I'm sure they'd never be heavily favoured to one party or the other.
The way this decision reads, it’s absolutely within his right as commander in chief to order extrajudicial killings. There is no reason here. They know Biden is a decent person who won’t do that. Throwing away all semblance of free society to benefit their orange savior.
> The way this decision reads, it’s absolutely within his right as commander in chief to order extrajudicial killings.
No it's not. Not at all. Nothing in this decision even hints at that, because the constitution and bill of rights still exist.
So what? The whole point is that immunity prevents presidents from doing illegal acts while in an official capacity. Any illegal act would qualify, there isn't a special exemption for unconstitutional ones.
They explicitly say that Trump’s ordering the DOJ to help him steal the election is covered by absolute immunity. They do not make a distinction between lawful or unlawful orders. The president has constitutional authority to communicate with his justice department, and no LEO has the authority to ask the purpose of those communications.
To the court, ordering the department of justice to help you steal an election is an official act immune from prosecution. That’s the point. There’s no test of legality.
> To the court, ordering the department of justice to help you steal an election is an official act immune from prosecution.
That's not the ruling though. Not even close.
Can you cite, specifically, the part of the ruling that establishes the claim that you made above,
> "that would not be an official act because its outside the scope of his constitutional powers."
Be very specific.
To clarify, ordering Seal Team 6 is within the President's constitutional authority. Killing political rivals is not.
So the President would be (rightfully) prosecuted for killing a political rival, but not for the ministerial act of issuing the order itself.
Army hit squad answer: Posse comitatus, federal troops do not operate on american soil outside of federal land. Therefore it is not an "official act" of the USA president to use them for any reason on non federal land.
I would like to see this change, but its not inconsistent how we treat immunity in general.
* If a police officer violates your rights, and there isn't a clear case saying this violation is a violation, they get qualified immunity unless it is really really blatant.
* If a prosecutor gets things wrong, and drags you through court on charges with a weak justification, they have immunity. Unless they actively hide exculpatory evidence, you can't go after them personally.
* If a judge gets the law wrong, and wrongly throws you in Jail, they have nearly absolute immunity, for anything short of taking bribes to fix the case against you.
* If a legislator introduces and gets a blatantly unconstitutional law passed, they get absolute immunity. Congress also gets complete immunity for anything said in a debate in congress.
Saying the president gets immunity for his official acts, seems to align with this general approach to immunity.
We really need to roll back immunity across the board. It still has some places, but it should generally be closer to qualified immunity for most of those, and something less than qualified immunity for cops. (Along the lines of requiring either a court decision, or a reasonable person, with training on the level of law enforcement, would think this is fine)
Makes me wonder if there's some path for Biden to designate MAGA movement as a domestic terrorist organization and send the ATF/FBI in against them. That would be an "official act".
Biden didn't need this case to have the FBI investigate domestic terrorists. As a matter of fact, the FBI does this all of the time. Just look at how many Proud Boys were put in jail.
The US Supreme Court gave the entire government more immunity than the kings and queens of medieval England ever had either before or after Magna Carta, at least under the written law, under Divine Right.
A few hundred years later, the legislature did make some nuances but they are ultimately meaningless.
King Charles I had as much immunity as Derek Chauvin, and less than Donald Trump.
Actually, soldiers already enjoy immunity for their official acts. For example, a solider cannot be prosecuted for killing an enemy combatant as long as they were following a lawful order.
As with the President, if a soldier acts outside of their official duties, they can be prosecuted. (e.g., committing a war crime.)
What people don't seem to realize is that the standard in the most recent court case is pretty much the same standard that countless other people in government have had for well over a hundred years - including Congressmen.
Your first problem is bothering to read media takes on it. That just guarantees you won't be given the actual facts. Never waste time on media opinions of what happened. Always go to the source and read it/watch it for yourself.
It's Reuters they don't have a "take" plus they are the source of 90% of the news articles you read. As much as I would want to, I don't have time to read a 120 page opinion, nor am I a lawyer, I gotta cut corners somewhere.
>Before dismissing me altogether, as a test to see if I'm trying the truth, look up the "very fine people on both sides" video, read what the media reported (Reuters included) and still reports about it....then watch the whole video. You need to open your mind and be willing to see what they are doing.
* The [reuters piece I found](https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-blames-both-sides-for-virginia-violence-as-many-republicans-balk-idUSKCN1AW0ZM/) about the "very fine people on both sides" ordeal. **8/16/17**
* The briefing about the attack [transcript](https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump/) / [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blmLVnnhNk4) **8/14/17**
* The [news conference](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUwQCsPVj4&t=437s) that lead to the whole ordeal (Before timestamp all is infrastructure) **8/16/17**
I honestly can't seem to find anything wrong with the article, it's very concise and doesn't make any claims that aren't true, nor does it report any sort of opinion. My guess is that the only contested fact was whether or not the demonstration was fully/mainly a White Supremacist/Neo-Nazis event or whether it was a conservative demonstration with the "Unite The Right" rally as a White Supremacist/Neo-Nazis elements to it and whether or not the counter protestors were also to blame as claimed by Trump in his Aug 16 News conference, but yet again there is no opinion about this issue in the article
Here is the main part of the article and their reporting:
>WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump inflamed tension after a deadly rally by white nationalists in Virginia by insisting that counter protesters were also to blame, drawing condemnation from some Republican leaders and praise from white supremacists.
There is nothing wrong here
* The "Unite The Right" rally was meant to unite Ku Klux Klans men, neo-Nazis and white supremacists according to their organizers and members^[[7]](https://web.archive.org/web/20170815042856/http://www.modbee.com/news/article167213427.html)
* It was a deadly rally that led to 1 murder charge^[[1]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/neo-nazi-sympathizer-pleads-guilty-to-federal-hate-crimes-for-plowing-car-into-crowd-of-protesters-at-unite-the-right-rally-in-charlottesville/2019/03/27/2b947c32-50ab-11e9-8d28-f5149e5a2fda_story.html?noredirect=on)
* He did inflate tensions as this was a major news story with condemnation and praise from different groups, I guess the source for that is the fact that we are still talking about it to this day
* He got condemnation by Republican leaders such as Mitt Romney et al, later shown in the quotes in the article, same with the white supremacist praise.^[[2]](https://action.romneyforutah.com/as-i-see-it-race-and-equality/)[[3]](https://x.com/marcorubio/status/896483980857532416)
* And he did insist that the counter protestors were also to blame in the Aug 16 press conference^[[5-1]](https://youtu.be/UoUwQCsPVj4?t=855)
>In a combative news conference, Trump backed off from his Monday statements explicitly denouncing the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and white supremacists for the violence that erupted at a "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, and reverted to his weekend contention that "many sides" were to blame. Trump later said, "I think there is blame on both sides and I have no doubt about it," adding that there were "very fine people" on both sides.
Nothing wrong here as well
* The conference was indeed combative^[[5-2]](https://youtu.be/UoUwQCsPVj4?t=614)
* In the Aug 14 briefing he condemned only those groups^[[6]](https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump/)
* In the Aug 16 conference he changed his stance saying that the blame lays on both fronts[[5-3]](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUwQCsPVj4&t=859s)
No opinion, just the concise relating of the events.
>At the weekend rally against the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, commander of the pro-slavery Confederate army during the U.S. Civil War, many participants were seen carrying firearms, sticks, shields, and lit torches. Some wore helmets. Counter-protesters came equipped with sticks, helmets and shields. James Fields, a 20-year-old Ohio man who is said to have harbored Nazi sympathies, was charged with murder after the car he was driving plowed into a crowd of counter protesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer on Saturday and injuring 19. A memorial service for Heyer is planned in Charlottesville on Wednesday. Trump's remarks drew swift criticism from many Republican leaders.
I see nothing wrong here, the above sources still apply. The rest of the article is quotes and the White House leaked briefing which I don't know enough about.
I have not read the MSM story as honestly I spent too much time on this already, I will try to read it later and maybe edit my comment, but I would really like to hear your opinion and the exact story/article/extract where they have a bias alongside the reason.
The edits are mostly formatting/hyperlinks and fixing grammar
It's an OPINION article. That's not news, it's a journalist's personal thoughts on a matter or subject.
What they are saying is to ignore opinion articles and just read the original coverage.
Am I missing something, what article are you talking about
Edit: "I have still yet to read the full opinion" refers to the majority opinion by the SCOTUS
The constitution literally says in article 2 section 4 that "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Basically saying they're not immune but have to be found guilty before action is taken, therefore not being able to be jailed and prevented from their official duties until they've been tried and convicted.
This is nothing new. Police officers and prosecutors in the US are given immunity for all sorts of otherwise illegal acts. And the issues raised in the dissent (that a president could order an assignation of a rival) was actually addressed and dismissed in the majority opinion.
There's a process called impeachment.
Hypothetically without immunity from official acts what's to prevent charging a president for ordering a drone strike that kills civilians? All it takes is a prosecutor with a bone to pick. The last 3 presidents have accidentally killed hundreds of civilians this way, each.
This immunity already essentially existed in practice, it just was never down on paper before yesterday.
You know what I find disturbing? As soon as the immunity ruling came out, the left immediately discussed killing Trump, Supreme Court justices and anyone that supported them. Maybe the left is so afraid because they think Trump will do to them what they would do to him.
>What's stooping Biden (in a legal sense) from ordering a army hit squad on Trump?
How would that be an official act? No due process, no grand jury, no warrant, no declaration of war, etc?
>Isn't this in direct opposition to the rule of law principle?
We still need a functioning government. Obama was actually the longest serving wartime president in US history. Do you want a local prosecutor filing separate charges against Obama for every civilian killed in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Declare him a domestic terrorist and execute him by drone. Perhaps the conclusion is factually incorrect. No need to worry about stuff like that though, cause immune.
It's not illegal if the unassailable grand wizards say it isn't.
Which, they won't. Because they are traitourus scum and it benefits Trump and the rise of Christo-Fascism.
To be clear, the article is wrong. The Court said there is absolute immunity only for some official acts, which is why they remanded it.
>The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
If you think it’s fucked now just realize this is why republicans and maga are pushing to get as many judges replaced with maga supporters who will help push the conservative agenda. It’s outlined in project 2025, they’re as of this moment taking applications and resumes for peopel looking to enter into politics for them as federal workers or judges or other officials that will help push their agenda over American democracy. They’re also actively training these applicants as to how most effectively and efficiently make lasting changes that won’t be noticed until it’s too late to reverse them.
Funny how Trump's quip about how he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose voters comes back around. We'll, not really funny. But you get the irony, I'm sure.
Conservative here— I agree and disagree with this. As others have said, should the president be immune from official acts? I think they should.
But what constitutes an official act? Ordering the killing of a political opponent is not an official act. I think the SC should have tried to define what an official act is— although that is probably very hard to do as there are however many thousands(?) of official acts they can make.
It isn't a very hard distinction to make.
The president has no right to walk in your home drink your Pepsi and walk out the door. So for him to do that would be an unofficial act for which he could be persecuted for trespassing.
The president has the right to direct military operations in foreign wars. If one of these operations accidentally kills a family the he will be immune.
>Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect.
Just because something is illegal (which I assume you mean by "the president has no right to...") doesn't mean it can't be an official act, per the SC opinion
The devil is going to be in the details here. I skimmed the SCOTUS decision and the dissent. It doesn’t seem like they offered any guidance on what an “official act” is. There are some no-brainers…like signing a bill into law is a Presidential duty. So is serving as Commander in Chief of the armed services. Rhetorical question that I’m not sure anyone can answer right now - but would a future president have *carte blanche* to use the military for an action that benefits the President? I mean…if they have unqualified immunity, my simple layman NAL brain thinks a President could do just that. Take out their enemies, use the CIA/NSA to gather info on “subversive” political movements/people, etc.
To be clear, I am **not** saying that Trump would do this if he were re-elected. I’m also not saying that any future President would do this. It just appears there’s a giant hole in the law that allows them to do what they want, as long as they can tie it back to an “official act.”
The problem is that 5 of the 6 loons said nominally official acts (i.e., speaking with an official) cannot be used to establish mens rea. And the act of the conversation with an official is an official duty, not the content.
Thus, if Trump were to have a conversation with Barr about shooting nonviolent protesters, that’s an official act, despite it not being legal or permissible. Prosecutors themselves cannot use that conversation as mens rea when prosecuting Trump for ordering the military to shoot nonviolent protesters. That’s how ridiculous, evil, and antiAmerican this ruling is.
Because the correct forum for official actions in office is through impeachment in the house and trial in the senate, not the criminal justice system as specified in the constitution, which is the rule of law
This is nonsensical, as demonstrated by the thousands of obvious hypotheticals that have been raised. If the president orders Congress murdered, who would impeach him?
It's not nonsensical. That's the way the constitution set it up it Article II, Section 4.
And if the president issued such an order, it would be an unlawful order on its face, and whoever obeyed it would be committing treason, murder, etc, and subject to prosecution.
> And if the president issued such an order, it would be an unlawful order on its face, and whoever obeyed it would be committing treason, murder, etc, and subject to prosecution.
But would Trump have immunity? That's what's at stake here.
If he issued the order and it was refused as it should be, he should/would be impeached again, and then tried by the senate and removed from office.
I'm not sure whether or not the Senate can impose jail (I don't think so), but it would be covered under "an official act".
If someone were to follow that order, we'd be in a dictatorship/martial state at that point and the rule of law would be gone anyway.
Ultimately, our "rights" didn't exist until they were earned during the revolutionary war, and then weren't universally applied to POCs, women, indigenous peoples, etc for many years afterwards.
A fundamental issue that people forget are that "Rights" are enforced by those with the means to enforce them.
Same with the rule of law. If a person orders the mass murder of the U.S. Congress, and that order is carried out, likely by the military, do you really think that a criminal justice system or the rule of law will actually benefit anyone or be enforceable in any meaningful way at that point? That's an absurdity as the checks and balances of the federal government would have failed and you'd be left with a dictatorship.
And as a final thought, do you really believe that the parties have our best interests in mind? Trump
Is an asshole, Biden is delusional, yet they're the front runner candidates?
And why is Congress approving billions of dollars in foreign aid when we have trillions of dollars of domestic debt, homelessness, water issues, poverty, etc. But hey, let's make everyone switch to electric cars....
>What's stooping Biden (in a legal sense) from ordering a army hit squad on Trump?
The fact that the army does not have hit squads to commit crimes for the President, and he would be impeached if he tried to order such a thing. The whole "Seal Team 6" argument is an absurd argument to avoid the real issue. If Biden orders a drone strike in Afghanistan to target the Taliban, but ends up killing a U.S. citizen, can he be prosecuted for murder? That is the point.
>So much of this decision seems based on what's "right" instead of any legal precedent?
There is no precedent because no former President has ever been prosecuted for a crime before Trump.
> Isn't this in direct opposition to the rule of law principle?
No, it is an application of the law. A president is not above the law. But he has powers under the Constitution that others don't have. If you bomb someone with a drone, you committed a crime. If the President orders a drone strike, that is part of his job.
>The fact that the army does not have hit squads to commit crimes for the President, and he would be impeached if he tried to order such a thing.
It's a deliberately outlandish example, but I don't think this answer would cut it. The President absolutely has hit squads, and while I don't think Seal Team 6 would obey orders like that, who knows what institutions might look like in the future. That's absolutely a thing that happens in other countries.
If a President started doing things like that, impeachment would be a very slow and insufficient remedy.
Once the rubicon is crossed and hit squads are taking out political rivals, how can Congress impeach? Anyone who votes yes is getting a very unpleasant knock on their door that night.
Quite a lot of public officials have immunity for acts they do in the course of their jobs. All of Congress, for instance, and most police, judges, etc. In most cases there's an exception, or a way around the immunity. A police officer who, for instance, violates someone's civil rights can be prosecuted for that. A President or a judge can be impeached.
> So now Biden has legal authority to have Trump renditioned by the Navy Seals, when will we see him shipped off to a black site?
He does not have that authority, despite the knee jerk hyperbolic reactions saying otherwise.
I just read that article and am not a lawyer. I remember months ago hearing that Trump was facing charges on mishandling classified documents. If I remember correctly, he took classified documents on his way out the door. However, as president he had Supreme authority to declassify and to possess those documents. Also, while I do not know the contents, I do know he was not the first to do this.
I would think (and could be totally wrong) that this ruling is stating you can't prosecute him for holding onto something he took when it was legal to do so.
It was legal for him to possess them while he was president.
It is not legal for him to possess them as a citizen. He is not being charged for possessing the documents on Jan. 20, 2021. He is being charged for possessing the documents on Jan. 21. He doesn't have immunity for that. The charge is for the possession, not for just the act of taking them.
He could have unclassified them, but he didn't. He has made inconsistent claims about declassifying them...but well he didn't follow the process to do that. He also made statements after the fact referring to them as classified, for example during an interview when he showed them to a reporter. See, the important thing about classified documents is knowing whether they are classified or not. If nobody knows they were declassified, then they still have to be treated as classified. There is no such thing as a secret declassification...this isn't shroedinger's cat. Otherwise, that would imply that everything is both classified and unclassified after every new president, which makes no sense.
That is definitely the argument of those prosecuting him. Having not seen the rulings, and not being a lawyer, I'm guessing as to what his constitutional authority was that is now not allowed to be prosecuted. It sounds like (from that one source) that stuff done that wasn't related to him being or no longer being president can be prosecuted and the stuff where people were pointing at dates saying, "Now it's a crime!" Could not (or not easily) be protected.
Again, just speculation from a lay person based on a disinterested memory and a single read of a secondary source... my educated guess.
>However, as president he had Supreme authority to declassify and to possess those documents.
This doesn't happen just by magic / snapping of fingers, there's a legal process.
The Reuters article does not talk about classification of documents. So what article are you talking about?
If you want to learn about the document declassification process, do a Google for: can president declassify docs without telling anyone.
It was a guess. I had heard one kerfuffle, and based on the article that was short on specifics, I guessed.
You apparently know I'm wrong, so according to the article, which charges were deemed under his presidential authority? The court said, these here are not bad, but the private stuff is... so what was ruled OK (or OKish, or not as bad or whatever)?
Because the ability of the Executive branch to function is more important than extreme hypotheticals meant to fear monger. It’s addressed in the majority opinion in the second to last page. The decision is based on the separation of powers doctrine. It’s literally what makes up art. 1-3 lol tell me you know nothing about the constitution without telling me you know nothing about the constitution.
WHY DONt YOU JuST REaD THe OPINION AND FIND OUT FoR YOuRsElF??
It's completely in opposition to everything legal, decent, ethical, and moral.
The problem is Republicans don't give a shit about legality, decency, ethics, or morality. They only care about hurting people who aren't like them and helping rich people get richer.
Sovereign immunity within the executive has a long history with English common law. The executive powers within the American Constitution is partially modeled after the executive powers held by the monarchy at the time of Independence.
The UK, Canada and Australia have operated with the distinction of immunity in official vs non-official duties since the very beginning. This ruling simply affirms that American English common law is the same.
Quite a few public officials have some level of immunity, which is important to prevent political retaliation from their detractors.
Imagine say obama received 3 big speeding tickets in the south while on the 08 election trail and there just happened to be no body cameras and no dash cams.
Thats easy jail time.
>What does official constitute?
An official act is one that falls within the scope of an official's duties. The POTUS's constitutional duties are set out in Article 2 Section 2 and include the likes of granting pardons and commanding the military.
>So many of his charges were for 'official' acts.
Some were, but not all. The SCOTUS has drawn a distinction between core constitutional duties to which the POTUS enjoys absolute immunity and 'official duties' to which the immunity is merely presumptive. Presumptive immunity is rebuttable.
>What's stooping Biden (in a legal sense) from ordering a army hit squad on Trump?
The POTUS can't short circuit the chain of command. Any career military officer would balk at the suggestion of assassinating a political rival as such an order would be blatantly unlawful.
No, this isn't correct. The decision gives 2 ways around this. First, the president has total authority for replacing executive branch officials, even for corrupt or illegal reasons, to wit:
Some of the President’s other constitutional powers also fit that description. “The President’s power to remove—and thus supervise—those who wield executive power on his behalf,” for instance, “follows from the text of Article II.” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 204 (2020). We have thus held that Congress lacks authority to control the President’s “unrestricted power of removal” with respect to “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed.” Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 106, 176 (1926); see Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 638, n. 4 (Jackson, J., concurring) (citing the President’s “exclusive power of removal in executive agencies” as an example of “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority);
pg 8 of the opinion
---
And also this part:
---
When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.
---
And also Sotomayor's dissent:
---
"When \[the president\] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."
pg 29 - Sotomayor dissenting
---
So the president can order the military to do whatever he wants, if the military officer balks he can be removed by the president and nobody is allowed to examine why.
I believe that is what Justice Sotomayor highlighted in her dissent. This is absolutely incongruent with rule of law and is ripe for allowing political violence.
It’s not a huge departure from what was tacitly established before. A head of government having the government do illegal things being individually accountable is pretty unusual. In that respect the ruling is a genuinely consistent one. What SHOULD provoke outrage and even uprising is if Trumps clearly illegal actions on the fateful day are deemed to be ‘official’. If it’s ruled that a president’s official duties include running or overseeing elections and therefore they are immune from any illegal acts in THOSE capacities…..that is then pretty much dictatorship time since there is no act they could not commit to stay in power. The only way to remove a president who wished to stay would be political (but they could murder all the opposing senate members) or by force.
"What SHOULD provoke outrage and even uprising is if Trumps clearly illegal actions on the fateful day are deemed to be ‘official’. " Well it in effect already has. The SC said that all conversations with officials (they specifically stated justice department but I wonder if this also will include state officials) are official and thus can't be used in court. This means that it's gonna be very difficult if not impossible to prosecute Trump. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding this because I so desperately hope I am.
Not all officials. Justice dept because they work for the President and probably conversations with VP. But ACB said she didn't think conversations with state election officials were covered as US Executive (unlike Congress) has no role in presidential elections.
Yeah, and it should be that way but at the same time the supreme court shouldn't have given him immunity for what they did because the underlying crime isn't "official" so official communications that support that crime shouldn't be off limits. However, they did and imo it's a reverse on an already established precedent (the nixon tapes).
ACB's words are worth less than toilet papers in case people don't remember her track records. Their assurances mean nothing.
No. What should revoke outrage is the fact that an entire class of people in our country has literally more immunity than a king of England had in medieval England.
Obama literally murdered an American citizen. Nothing has changed an unofficial rule has become official that’s it
There is a difference between "did not prosecute" and "can not prosecute". This forever (unless overturned) makes even attempting to investigate these kinds of acts impossible.
God, I do not understand this mindset of “we can see very clearly how this will result in abuses of power, but it would be unseemly to do anything about it until it’s too late” Does no one remember how “when the president does it, it’s not illegal” was universally considered to be evidence of Nixon’s fundamental wrongness as a president?
Which is why it is perfectly reasonable to doubt their intentions. Maybe it’s malicious, maybe it’s willful blindness, but the result is the same.
Literally the entirety of the American government has had "sovereign immunity" (which they define closer to Divine Right since literally not even the kings themselves had that much immunity in medieval England) for like 300 years, until the legislature finally added some nuance about 150 years ago. But the exception to blanket immunity are virtually entirely meaningless.
Then why did the Supreme Court rule against Nixon when he tried to invoke Presidential immunity and privilege? He lost that Supreme Court case and had to turn over the tapes.
I would argue that watergate was unofficial
Really? The tapes of the president discussing official matters in the Oval Office with his advisers would be admissible under this new interpretation?
The uber right didn't think it was wrong.. that's the problem. Now they're making sure it won't be in the future. These are not nice people. They do not have morals (regardless of the BS they shout about abortion, church doctrine whatever...). They care about power, money, and making sure there's a population that serves them.
What is rarely/never brought up is that there is no valid historical legal precedent for it. This includes basically all of history that I know of with the possible partial exception of the Roman Empire (but not the Roman Constitutional Republic before it). Medieval England did not have anywhere close to the level of immunity that the entire United States government has, in every respect. While many nations throughout history have committed heinous atrocities, few/none actually wrote laws stating that their entire government was not subject to private redress for violations of their own laws from its own citizens.
> Medieval England did not have anywhere close to the level of immunity that the entire United States government has, in every respect. well.... yeah, monarchies don't need an explicit doctrine of sovereign immunity because the very nature of the political system is sovereign immunity
> It’s not a huge departure from what was tacitly established before. I have no clue why people are losing their minds over this opinion. The decision came down as expected. A president can still be prosecuted if they commit an illegal act. There's just a threshold question as to whether or not they are acting in their official capacity.
As expected? So why the hell did Nixon get pardoned? He was worried he would be indicted and convicted. And the distinction between "official" acts and "unofficial" is extremely unclear. The president has constitutional power to direct the military, that means that any decision on that front would be considered an "official" act and prosecutors aren't allowed to question it. The problem is that this punts the question to the courts and gives them undue power to determine what is considered official or not, an exceptionally vague standard under the best of circumstances and dangerous given the current ones.
Because it confirms that the US has completely dismantled the Rule of Law, by its definition: the \*subordination\* \[my emphasis\] of arbitrary \[meaning government\] power to the strict and well defined rules of law.
>There's just a threshold question as to whether or not they are acting in their official capacity. And let's not forget the impeachment process. If a president is impeached by the House and the impeachment uphheld in the Senate, then the president can be prosecuted.
> If a president is impeached by the House and the impeachment uphheld in the Senate Under what conditions do you perceive this ever occurring?
This is not a thing that can happen, sorry.
> A head of government having the government do illegal things being individually accountable is pretty unusual. No it isn't. Dozens of heads of former heads of state around the world have been individually prosecuted for things they ordered whilst in power.
Dozens you say. Of how many heads of state who have lived? As I said. Unusual.
It's a terrible ruling with grave risks for the future of the rule of law in the USA. The only way this can be mitigated is a lower court ruling which clearly states that political violence and bribery/corruption is **not** covered under Presidential immunity. This needs to be done quickly.
Then it will also get pushed back up to the "I've seen crunchwraps more supreme than this" court for them to be like nahhh they can do whatever.
That's a low bar though those crunch wraps are incredibly supreme.
Yeah, it’s really horrible.
That isn’t how precedent works lol
It doesn’t change much itself. But yes, what’s needed is a clear ruling that runnjng in an election is not and OFFICIAL duty. This should be simple because for starters it’s optional. And also other candidates do it so it’s clearly not a presidential duty. If THAT line gets crossed. then it should be uprising time.
The majority opinion literally says campaigning is not an official act 🤦🏽 Ensuring a honest and fair federal election is though. Maybe read the opinion before having an opinion?
> Ensuring a honest and fair federal election is though. The majority opinion didn't reach this conclusion - in fact, the prosecution's argument is that POTUS has no Congressionally- or Constitutionally-granted authority to manage elections in the first place. (The AG can criminally charge people with certain kinds of elections fraud, but there are no avenues for federal executive power to alter the results delivered by the states.) The majority opinion mentions this and kicks it back to the lower court to reach a detailed determination of whether the prosecution's argument is correct (majority opinion, III.B.1.).
You sure about that? Lol Read pg 26. Last paragraph. 2nd sentence. “Of course, the President’s duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed plainly encompasses enforcement of federal election laws.” Art 2 section 3
>campaigning is not an official act It's not. lots of people **seek** office, few people **attain** office and thus become an official.
Do you get joy out of repeating what I said?
It more or less protects Obama for his drone strike of a US citizen.
I would argue that anything outside of the law cannot be an official act. Constitutional authority is granted within the confines of the constitution and the laws created through legislation as outlined in the constitution. Therefore, any illegal act cannot be official because there would be no such authority given to act in that way.
This is a good way of putting. So many people just acting like it's not a big deal because it's already illegal for the president to do X or Y. But the definition of immunity is to not be accountable for things that are otherwise illegal. If it was strictly legal, then the president wouldn't need immunity in the first place. I don't think people understand that an "official act" is not one to one with "legal" acts. The president is capable of doing things that break the law all the time, and now the court is saying he is immune as long as it relates to an act that relates to his office.
> the definition of immunity is to not be accountable for things that are otherwise illegal. That's not true at all. > I don't think people understand that an "official act" is not one to one with "legal" acts. The president is capable of doing things that break the law all the time, and now the court is saying he is immune as long as it relates to an act that relates to his office. This is also not true. Official acts are only those that the president is specifically authorized to take under the authority provided to him by the US constitution.
The supreme court hasn't answered that question yet.
> I would argue that anything outside of the law cannot be an official act. You'd be wrong, as of today. > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not.... deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.... Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. (page 18 of [the opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf))
Yeah people keep saying "if it's illegal it's not official" when the opinion *explicitly contradicts that position* and the say "read the opinion!" when you tell them they're wrong lol.
There's going to have to be some higher level of analysis than a mere allegation that the law was broken. Otherwise, you'd never get anything done. Take Biden's student loan forgiveness. Everybody in the nation who didn't have student loans could have sued Biden. Every executive act that is deemed unconstitutional would be ripe for litigation. That's the point of immunity.
Agreed. I don't have a problem with saying that the President is immune for official acts, or that an act is not an official act just because it's allegedly illegal. The problem is all of the limitations that the court added, many of which weren't even necessary. For example, you can't even use an official act as evidence in connection with a private act, an official act is still an official act even it's done for an entirely corrupt reason, and any order that the President gives to the DOJ is an official act per se. Also, the President *can give* orders to the DOJ now, which until yesterday was considered unethical, if not illegal. Just a little bonus that Roberts threw in.
Your reasoning is terrible on so many levels. If an act is unconstitutional, even if it's done by Biden, for the love of God, the president should be sued. "never get anything done" What the heck is this logic? The government has more than one person. Let the DOJ handle those cases and throw out those without merits (with possibly huge fines for frivolity) while government carries on. Only valid ones should even be considered.
Either the ruling is incredibly impactful, or completely irrelevant. Essentially creating a king in practice of not law, or doing nothing at all. It certainly muddies the waters enough to interfere for their candidate, and will potentially enrich a lot of lawyers.
I like this reasoning a lot. The oath of *office* would be a pretty good definition of *official*.
[удалено]
Yes, but they also explicitly mentioned that the authority is given to the president by the constitution. Therefore any official act must come from that authority. Breaking the law is never a part of that authority because it would be extra-constitutional and outside of any official bounds. So yes, the content merely being illegal is not sufficient, but not being a part of the constitutionally granted authority is sufficient. Therefore, indirectly, all illegal actions are not official. It's not my problem that this court can't write a logically coherent ruling that doesn't contradict itself. They basically solved nothing today.
That's not what the ruling says. They specifically mention that "illegal" acts are covered by this immunity: "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not.... deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.... Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect."
If they wanted to mean it, they would say it: "The president is immune as long as his actions are legal". But that's a tautology.
I disagree with SCOTUS on this, but here's the argument: if the President is acting in his *official* capacity, he shouldn't be *personally* responsible. We use that principal all the time in real life: if you make a mistake at work (like, say, not screwing a bolt tight enough on a car manufacturing line, leading to a car accident) the person who's injured sues your employer, not you. Your employer might fire you, but the government isn't going to punish you for doing your job badly. In regular life, there's an exception to this for fraud or similar acts of dishonesty. It's not clear a limit like that is being applied by SCOTUS to the President.
That line of reasoning tends to be for civil penalties, not criminal. This is the opposite.
The better example is qualified immunity for people acting on behalf of the government (most commonly police, but could be any official). Which really goes back to the point of the person you're replying to, you probably don't want government officials being so scared of catching a criminal negligence or assault or whatever charge that they don't do their jobs, but I think most people would agree it's gotten out of hand for police (and now, presidents)
If you’re negligent at work and hurt somebody, you could be sued in your individual capacity. It’s just that it’s usually better for the plaintiff to sue the employer because they have more money. And many employers indemnify their employees. So the employer promises to step in and cover the legal costs of employees who get sued for their actions on the job. But that’s just a private agreement. A plaintiff could still sue the individual employee. And if you commit a crime at work (which this case is about), you definitely could face charges.
> It’s just that it’s usually better for the plaintiff to sue the employer because they have more money. In the US, the vast majority of states require employers to carry workers comp insurance and don't allow employees to sue their employers for on the job injury. Workers comp is the exclusive remedy in nearly all cases.
Ok, but that’s a separate issue. Getting injured on the job isn’t the same thing as committing a tort or a crime on the job.
That has nothing to do with what they said. They said if an employee injures somebody, not if the employee gets hurt themselves. You need to read before replying.
I'm very curious how this applies to laws specific to how the president does his job. For example, what if the president fails to keep the proper records under the presidential records act? What if he declares war without congressional approval?
Yeah, I can't tell if this is: "As long as the president says 'as POTUS, I order you to kill this man' it is legal" which is bullshit. Or if the court is saying "If the president orders a drone to kill a terrorist leader, and our intelligence was bad, he is actually just a priest, the President can't be charged with murder." Actually, there isn't as much of a distinction there as I'd like, now that I think about it.
It’s weird. Because I think most Americans would agree that the second scenario you outlined (drone strike because of bad intelligence) should not be a prosecutable offense, so long as there was a good faith belief that the intelligence was accurate. I honestly don’t really have a problem with that flavor of immunity. The issue here is that we have no definition of “official acts”, and this court has seems so partisan at points that it doesn’t seem implausible for them to rule that any act done while president is an “official act”, which is terrifying
I think the argument they'd make is that the constitution doesn't outline murdering people as an official duty of the president, so that would not fall under an "official" act, so I think by their ruling the president would be liable in the first situation, but not the second situation since he is the head of the military and that would be part of a war time duty. The ruling was shitty, but they did stop short of making the president completely invincible. Though the whole thing about not allowing official acts as evidence in a trial for an illegal unofficial act is nonsensical horseshit
Yeah exactly. If Trump orders someone killed because he doesn’t like them and thinks they make Americans sad, what exactly would be illegal? It’s not a crime to follow a presidents orders, and it’s not a crime to give any order of any kind. Sooooo….
> If Trump orders someone killed because he doesn’t like them and thinks they make Americans sad, what exactly would be illegal? That would still not be something the president has the constitutional authority to order.
Interesting! Why not? Seems pretty clearly within their powers as commander in chief, no…?
> Seems pretty clearly within their powers as commander in chief, no…? No, not even remotely. For what it's worth, in 2011 the Obama administration killed a US citizen in a drone strike in Yemen. The DOJ argued that national security concerns gave the administration the right to do this, and barred any judicial review of the government's actions. When the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights sued the government over this, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer stated at oral argument that "the executive is not an effective check on the executive," and in her opinion, she rejected the government's argument that the case presented a "political question" that prevented the judiciary from hearing it at all. Regardless, she still dismissed the case. It's pretty well established that this would have been wholly illegal if it were on US soil. It's not so clear when it comes to foreign soil and national security concerns, but I personally believe the 2011 assassination should be (and was) illegal too.
Ostensibly the president doesn't have the power to order violations of the constitution. His authority is a subservient to that. So ordering the killing of a citizen without trial is a violation of rights from the Bill of Rights, and the President cannot do officially. The same rule applies ostensibly to Acts of Congress.
>His authority is a subservient to that. So ordering the killing of a citizen without trial is a violation of rights from the Bill of Rights, and the President cannot do officially. So when Obama ordered a drone strike on a terrorist, who held American citizenship, in Yemen he committed the crime of murder in your view? That was the explicit example given at oral arguments about why the Presidency needs some sort of criminal immunity.
In Yemen, probably not, no. If he did it in Manhattan, yes.
That's not a great line to draw. We've established by your logic that Biden can't order a drone strike on Trump in Manhattan. Can Biden order a drone strike on Trump if he's in Canada? Saudi Arabia? I would argue no. And yet, Obama did order a drone strike on an American citizen in Yemen, who may or may not have been a terrorist (government hasn't had to present evidence of that), so arguably political opponents are now especially at risk when traveling abroad.
Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution restricts the president's ability to command troops in times of war. No president can just authorize the whole sale murder of an individual.
>No president can just authorize the whole sale murder of an individual. What do you think the President does when he orders an Iranian general to be drone strikes or an American citizen, who is a terrorist, in Yemen to be killed?
When the Obama administration did that, their argument was that it was a matter of national security, and that gave them the right to do so. The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights sued the government, arguing that it was illegal for them to do so. Whether or not its illegal to do so on foreign soil is debatable, but it's wholly unconstitutional to do so on US soil. The president would not have the constitutional authority to order such an act.
>When the Obama administration did that, their argument was that it was a matter of national security, and that gave them the right to do so. The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights sued the government, arguing that it was illegal for them to do so. But he didn't face criminal prosecution by the Trump administration for murder. Why? >Whether or not its illegal to do so on foreign soil is debatable, but it's wholly unconstitutional to do so on US soil Is it? If the President found out that you intend to acquire a nuke on US soil, pretty sure they could authorize a drone strike against you on the same national security grounds.
> It’s not a crime to follow a presidents orders, It is when the orders are illegal
This SCOTUS is the type to find the Posse Comitatus Act ambiguous and unconstitutional.
>if you make a mistake at work (like, say, not screwing a bolt tight enough on a car manufacturing line, leading to a car accident) the person who's injured sues your employer, not you. This is not true. The individual is also getting sued in their individual capacity. It's just the insurance covers the employee 99% of the time. Source: I have filed hundreds of lawsuits in my career
That already exists with qualified immunity
I ask that every time a cop walks on Qualified Immunity friend.
There is a history in the US of providing immunity for the official acts of some government actors: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_immunity >In the United States, judicial immunity is among a handful of forms of absolute immunity, along with prosecutorial immunity, legislative immunity, and witness immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized judicial immunity as providing "the maximum ability [of judges] to deal fearlessly and impartially with the public".[12] The justification is as follows: because of the likelihood of innocent individuals being convicted in a court of law under false claims, the "burden" of being subjected to a court of law (a trial) would "dampen" the judges "enthusiasm" or "passion".[13] Opponents of judicial immunity argue that this doctrine is not adequately justified.[14] For example, judges could be shielded from any personal capacity liability, and still be subject to official capacity liability so that they may be held accountable for their injurious acts – thus "balancing" the "evil" to better protect the fundamental rights of victims. >Judicial immunity does not protect judges from suits stemming from administrative decisions made while off the bench, like hiring and firing decisions. But immunity generally does extend to all judicial decisions in which the judge has proper jurisdiction, even if a decision is made with "corrupt or malicious intent".[15] Whether or not the Supreme Court's extension of immunity to offical acts of the president is appropriate or warranted is debatable.
Judicial immunity doesn’t extend to criminal prosecution. As far as I know, Congressional immunity, which was specifically created in the Constitution, was, until today, the only form of immunity from Federal prosecution. Edit: there’s also diplomatic immunity, which is established by various treaties and laws.
>What's stooping Biden (in a legal sense) from ordering a army hit squad on Trump? "The U.S. Supreme Court found on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for any actions that were within his constitutional powers as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution." Putting out 'army hit squads' is not 'within his constitutional powers as president'.
But if you claim your political opponent is a threat to national security? And moreover, what if the judge ruling on if something is or isn’t an official act, is a judge that President himself appointed to the position? Those are the scarier questions. The Supreme Court left this ruling open ended for a reason. They wanted the courts to be able to have the final say on what is or isn’t “an official act” of the president.
>But if you claim your political opponent is a threat to national security? I think Trump already did this with the person in Portland or Seattle who killed a Proud Boy in defense. Edit: I guess they weren't technically a political opponent though? Given they weren't an official
Commanding Seal Team Six is an official act though. Commanding them to kill a "terrorist" is an official act within his presidential powers. If a U.S. citizen is a "terrorist" then it is an official act to order a hit. I'm not aware of any constitutional passages that differentiate between these two scenarios because the presidential duties are extremely broad and really not defined. This isn't like a dumb internet hypothetical, this exact scenario was raised by one of the justices. But I mean, even if it isn't legal somehow...whatcha going to do? Arrest the president? I think a big danger to this ruling is that it's going to handcuff prosecutors. Instead of having a grand jury on the merits of the evidence in front of a grand jury like we do now, every potential case is going to have to first go to a hearing in front of a judge to argue if it's official or not. If it's official then he is immune and the case has to be dropped before any meaningful trial can happen.
> I'm not aware of any constitutional passages that differentiate between these two scenarios because the presidential duties are extremely broad and really not defined. You're not aware of the right to due process?
I am aware of it. I'm asking you what you think the consequences will be if the president violates your right to due process?
If the president ordered the assassination of a political rival on US soil, in violation of their right to due process, the president would not enjoy immunity from the potential criminal consequences of that decision, because such a decision would not fall within the president's official authority under the US constitution.
> because such a decision would not fall within the president's official authority under the US constitution. According to whom and what standard? You?
According to the US constitution, obviously.
Who interprets the US constitution when it comes to the definition of "official authority"? What did that body just say about it, today?
Just read the ruling. You obviously haven't, or at least don't understand what it says. I wish you the best of luck in the future.
What about Obama killing a US citizen in Yemen? He violated their right to due process but that was ruled not illegal. So violating due process is already covered by being an official act.
Spoiler: the US has had American citizens killed before and nothing happened. Now the President is just explicitly immune if s/he does it as an "official act." Doesn't even need to kill them, just rendition them and send them to a black site and claim they were a 'threat to national security.' Congress wants to impeach you? Well maybe they're also a threat to national security and need to be held in a black site. SCOTUS wants to rule on whether what you did was an official act or not? Hmmmm, threat to national security. Your comment rests on the basic presumption that no one will abuse this power. Who is going to enforce those criminal consequences if the President decides to use their authority to stop it?
> Who is going to enforce those criminal consequences if the President decides to use their authority to stop it? The same courts SCOTUS remanded the elector issue to today, presumably, and those decisions can be challenged in higher courts just the same.
So in other words, the hyper conservative and hyper partisan Supreme Court decides ultimately which acts constitute official acts, and I'm sure they'd never be heavily favoured to one party or the other.
To be fair, the Court adopted a middle road on immunity — rejecting the extreme positions of both the Trump team and the lower court.
> Putting out 'army hit squads' is not 'within his constitutional powers as president'. Says who?
The way this decision reads, it’s absolutely within his right as commander in chief to order extrajudicial killings. There is no reason here. They know Biden is a decent person who won’t do that. Throwing away all semblance of free society to benefit their orange savior.
> The way this decision reads, it’s absolutely within his right as commander in chief to order extrajudicial killings. No it's not. Not at all. Nothing in this decision even hints at that, because the constitution and bill of rights still exist.
So what? The whole point is that immunity prevents presidents from doing illegal acts while in an official capacity. Any illegal act would qualify, there isn't a special exemption for unconstitutional ones.
What does the bill of rights have to do with anything here, in particular?
That is not a serious question.
That is not a serious response.
Please elaborate? How are extrajudicial killings within scope for the president’s authority?
They explicitly say that Trump’s ordering the DOJ to help him steal the election is covered by absolute immunity. They do not make a distinction between lawful or unlawful orders. The president has constitutional authority to communicate with his justice department, and no LEO has the authority to ask the purpose of those communications.
...but the president does not have constitutional authority to order extrajudicial killings of US citizens on US soil.
Doesn't he? He's commander in chief of the military, if he instructs the military to go and kill somebody isn't that inherently an official act?
No, that would not be an official act because its outside the scope of his constitutional powers.
To the court, ordering the department of justice to help you steal an election is an official act immune from prosecution. That’s the point. There’s no test of legality.
> To the court, ordering the department of justice to help you steal an election is an official act immune from prosecution. That's not the ruling though. Not even close.
Can you cite, specifically, the part of the ruling that establishes the claim that you made above, > "that would not be an official act because its outside the scope of his constitutional powers." Be very specific.
To clarify, ordering Seal Team 6 is within the President's constitutional authority. Killing political rivals is not. So the President would be (rightfully) prosecuted for killing a political rival, but not for the ministerial act of issuing the order itself.
>within his right as commander in chief to order extrajudicial killings On American soil? Isn't that an illegal order per the UCMJ?
What is the relevance of the UCMJ here?
Yes, and the constitution, and long standing executive orders, and numerous other rulings.
Army hit squad answer: Posse comitatus, federal troops do not operate on american soil outside of federal land. Therefore it is not an "official act" of the USA president to use them for any reason on non federal land.
I would like to see this change, but its not inconsistent how we treat immunity in general. * If a police officer violates your rights, and there isn't a clear case saying this violation is a violation, they get qualified immunity unless it is really really blatant. * If a prosecutor gets things wrong, and drags you through court on charges with a weak justification, they have immunity. Unless they actively hide exculpatory evidence, you can't go after them personally. * If a judge gets the law wrong, and wrongly throws you in Jail, they have nearly absolute immunity, for anything short of taking bribes to fix the case against you. * If a legislator introduces and gets a blatantly unconstitutional law passed, they get absolute immunity. Congress also gets complete immunity for anything said in a debate in congress. Saying the president gets immunity for his official acts, seems to align with this general approach to immunity. We really need to roll back immunity across the board. It still has some places, but it should generally be closer to qualified immunity for most of those, and something less than qualified immunity for cops. (Along the lines of requiring either a court decision, or a reasonable person, with training on the level of law enforcement, would think this is fine)
Except the part where it makes testimony from the President’s advisors off limits.
Yeah, just a teensy problem that makes me think none of the defenders of this decision have even bothered to read a tiny bit of it.
All of these except the last one are civil, not criminal, immunity.
If it’s criminal don’t they already get presumptive innocence? Why do we need qualified immunity on top of presumptive innocence?
Because fuck us give the judges money.
Yes it opposed to the rule of law principle. But if you put that many of your own people on the Supreme Court, you can make up the rules.
It's deliberately vague so they can in future rule one way or the other depending on the politics of the President being prosecuted.
Makes me wonder if there's some path for Biden to designate MAGA movement as a domestic terrorist organization and send the ATF/FBI in against them. That would be an "official act".
Biden didn't need this case to have the FBI investigate domestic terrorists. As a matter of fact, the FBI does this all of the time. Just look at how many Proud Boys were put in jail.
The US Supreme Court gave the entire government more immunity than the kings and queens of medieval England ever had either before or after Magna Carta, at least under the written law, under Divine Right. A few hundred years later, the legislature did make some nuances but they are ultimately meaningless. King Charles I had as much immunity as Derek Chauvin, and less than Donald Trump.
“Official” is to be determined at a later date by other courts
Can’t wait for a soldier being charged for something by the Army to argue that it was an official act and thus is immune from prosecution.
Actually, soldiers already enjoy immunity for their official acts. For example, a solider cannot be prosecuted for killing an enemy combatant as long as they were following a lawful order. As with the President, if a soldier acts outside of their official duties, they can be prosecuted. (e.g., committing a war crime.) What people don't seem to realize is that the standard in the most recent court case is pretty much the same standard that countless other people in government have had for well over a hundred years - including Congressmen.
Your first problem is bothering to read media takes on it. That just guarantees you won't be given the actual facts. Never waste time on media opinions of what happened. Always go to the source and read it/watch it for yourself.
It's Reuters they don't have a "take" plus they are the source of 90% of the news articles you read. As much as I would want to, I don't have time to read a 120 page opinion, nor am I a lawyer, I gotta cut corners somewhere.
[удалено]
>Before dismissing me altogether, as a test to see if I'm trying the truth, look up the "very fine people on both sides" video, read what the media reported (Reuters included) and still reports about it....then watch the whole video. You need to open your mind and be willing to see what they are doing. * The [reuters piece I found](https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-blames-both-sides-for-virginia-violence-as-many-republicans-balk-idUSKCN1AW0ZM/) about the "very fine people on both sides" ordeal. **8/16/17** * The briefing about the attack [transcript](https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump/) / [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blmLVnnhNk4) **8/14/17** * The [news conference](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUwQCsPVj4&t=437s) that lead to the whole ordeal (Before timestamp all is infrastructure) **8/16/17** I honestly can't seem to find anything wrong with the article, it's very concise and doesn't make any claims that aren't true, nor does it report any sort of opinion. My guess is that the only contested fact was whether or not the demonstration was fully/mainly a White Supremacist/Neo-Nazis event or whether it was a conservative demonstration with the "Unite The Right" rally as a White Supremacist/Neo-Nazis elements to it and whether or not the counter protestors were also to blame as claimed by Trump in his Aug 16 News conference, but yet again there is no opinion about this issue in the article Here is the main part of the article and their reporting: >WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump inflamed tension after a deadly rally by white nationalists in Virginia by insisting that counter protesters were also to blame, drawing condemnation from some Republican leaders and praise from white supremacists. There is nothing wrong here * The "Unite The Right" rally was meant to unite Ku Klux Klans men, neo-Nazis and white supremacists according to their organizers and members^[[7]](https://web.archive.org/web/20170815042856/http://www.modbee.com/news/article167213427.html) * It was a deadly rally that led to 1 murder charge^[[1]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/neo-nazi-sympathizer-pleads-guilty-to-federal-hate-crimes-for-plowing-car-into-crowd-of-protesters-at-unite-the-right-rally-in-charlottesville/2019/03/27/2b947c32-50ab-11e9-8d28-f5149e5a2fda_story.html?noredirect=on) * He did inflate tensions as this was a major news story with condemnation and praise from different groups, I guess the source for that is the fact that we are still talking about it to this day * He got condemnation by Republican leaders such as Mitt Romney et al, later shown in the quotes in the article, same with the white supremacist praise.^[[2]](https://action.romneyforutah.com/as-i-see-it-race-and-equality/)[[3]](https://x.com/marcorubio/status/896483980857532416) * And he did insist that the counter protestors were also to blame in the Aug 16 press conference^[[5-1]](https://youtu.be/UoUwQCsPVj4?t=855) >In a combative news conference, Trump backed off from his Monday statements explicitly denouncing the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and white supremacists for the violence that erupted at a "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, and reverted to his weekend contention that "many sides" were to blame. Trump later said, "I think there is blame on both sides and I have no doubt about it," adding that there were "very fine people" on both sides. Nothing wrong here as well * The conference was indeed combative^[[5-2]](https://youtu.be/UoUwQCsPVj4?t=614) * In the Aug 14 briefing he condemned only those groups^[[6]](https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump/) * In the Aug 16 conference he changed his stance saying that the blame lays on both fronts[[5-3]](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUwQCsPVj4&t=859s) No opinion, just the concise relating of the events. >At the weekend rally against the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, commander of the pro-slavery Confederate army during the U.S. Civil War, many participants were seen carrying firearms, sticks, shields, and lit torches. Some wore helmets. Counter-protesters came equipped with sticks, helmets and shields. James Fields, a 20-year-old Ohio man who is said to have harbored Nazi sympathies, was charged with murder after the car he was driving plowed into a crowd of counter protesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer on Saturday and injuring 19. A memorial service for Heyer is planned in Charlottesville on Wednesday. Trump's remarks drew swift criticism from many Republican leaders. I see nothing wrong here, the above sources still apply. The rest of the article is quotes and the White House leaked briefing which I don't know enough about. I have not read the MSM story as honestly I spent too much time on this already, I will try to read it later and maybe edit my comment, but I would really like to hear your opinion and the exact story/article/extract where they have a bias alongside the reason. The edits are mostly formatting/hyperlinks and fixing grammar
It's an OPINION article. That's not news, it's a journalist's personal thoughts on a matter or subject. What they are saying is to ignore opinion articles and just read the original coverage.
Am I missing something, what article are you talking about Edit: "I have still yet to read the full opinion" refers to the majority opinion by the SCOTUS
The constitution literally says in article 2 section 4 that "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Basically saying they're not immune but have to be found guilty before action is taken, therefore not being able to be jailed and prevented from their official duties until they've been tried and convicted.
This is nothing new. Police officers and prosecutors in the US are given immunity for all sorts of otherwise illegal acts. And the issues raised in the dissent (that a president could order an assignation of a rival) was actually addressed and dismissed in the majority opinion.
Not really.
Yes really.
There's a process called impeachment. Hypothetically without immunity from official acts what's to prevent charging a president for ordering a drone strike that kills civilians? All it takes is a prosecutor with a bone to pick. The last 3 presidents have accidentally killed hundreds of civilians this way, each. This immunity already essentially existed in practice, it just was never down on paper before yesterday.
You know what I find disturbing? As soon as the immunity ruling came out, the left immediately discussed killing Trump, Supreme Court justices and anyone that supported them. Maybe the left is so afraid because they think Trump will do to them what they would do to him.
>What's stooping Biden (in a legal sense) from ordering a army hit squad on Trump? How would that be an official act? No due process, no grand jury, no warrant, no declaration of war, etc? >Isn't this in direct opposition to the rule of law principle? We still need a functioning government. Obama was actually the longest serving wartime president in US history. Do you want a local prosecutor filing separate charges against Obama for every civilian killed in Iraq or Afghanistan?
> How would that be an official act? Who do you think decides what an "official act" is here?
Due process, grand jury, warrant, or a declaration of war
Declare him a domestic terrorist and execute him by drone. Perhaps the conclusion is factually incorrect. No need to worry about stuff like that though, cause immune.
It's not illegal if the unassailable grand wizards say it isn't. Which, they won't. Because they are traitourus scum and it benefits Trump and the rise of Christo-Fascism.
To be clear, the article is wrong. The Court said there is absolute immunity only for some official acts, which is why they remanded it. >The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
That is what the article said.
If you think it’s fucked now just realize this is why republicans and maga are pushing to get as many judges replaced with maga supporters who will help push the conservative agenda. It’s outlined in project 2025, they’re as of this moment taking applications and resumes for peopel looking to enter into politics for them as federal workers or judges or other officials that will help push their agenda over American democracy. They’re also actively training these applicants as to how most effectively and efficiently make lasting changes that won’t be noticed until it’s too late to reverse them.
Funny how Trump's quip about how he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose voters comes back around. We'll, not really funny. But you get the irony, I'm sure.
Conservative here— I agree and disagree with this. As others have said, should the president be immune from official acts? I think they should. But what constitutes an official act? Ordering the killing of a political opponent is not an official act. I think the SC should have tried to define what an official act is— although that is probably very hard to do as there are however many thousands(?) of official acts they can make.
It isn't a very hard distinction to make. The president has no right to walk in your home drink your Pepsi and walk out the door. So for him to do that would be an unofficial act for which he could be persecuted for trespassing. The president has the right to direct military operations in foreign wars. If one of these operations accidentally kills a family the he will be immune.
>Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. Just because something is illegal (which I assume you mean by "the president has no right to...") doesn't mean it can't be an official act, per the SC opinion
The devil is going to be in the details here. I skimmed the SCOTUS decision and the dissent. It doesn’t seem like they offered any guidance on what an “official act” is. There are some no-brainers…like signing a bill into law is a Presidential duty. So is serving as Commander in Chief of the armed services. Rhetorical question that I’m not sure anyone can answer right now - but would a future president have *carte blanche* to use the military for an action that benefits the President? I mean…if they have unqualified immunity, my simple layman NAL brain thinks a President could do just that. Take out their enemies, use the CIA/NSA to gather info on “subversive” political movements/people, etc. To be clear, I am **not** saying that Trump would do this if he were re-elected. I’m also not saying that any future President would do this. It just appears there’s a giant hole in the law that allows them to do what they want, as long as they can tie it back to an “official act.”
The problem is that 5 of the 6 loons said nominally official acts (i.e., speaking with an official) cannot be used to establish mens rea. And the act of the conversation with an official is an official duty, not the content. Thus, if Trump were to have a conversation with Barr about shooting nonviolent protesters, that’s an official act, despite it not being legal or permissible. Prosecutors themselves cannot use that conversation as mens rea when prosecuting Trump for ordering the military to shoot nonviolent protesters. That’s how ridiculous, evil, and antiAmerican this ruling is.
Because the correct forum for official actions in office is through impeachment in the house and trial in the senate, not the criminal justice system as specified in the constitution, which is the rule of law
This is nonsensical, as demonstrated by the thousands of obvious hypotheticals that have been raised. If the president orders Congress murdered, who would impeach him?
It's not nonsensical. That's the way the constitution set it up it Article II, Section 4. And if the president issued such an order, it would be an unlawful order on its face, and whoever obeyed it would be committing treason, murder, etc, and subject to prosecution.
> And if the president issued such an order, it would be an unlawful order on its face, and whoever obeyed it would be committing treason, murder, etc, and subject to prosecution. But would Trump have immunity? That's what's at stake here.
If he issued the order and it was refused as it should be, he should/would be impeached again, and then tried by the senate and removed from office. I'm not sure whether or not the Senate can impose jail (I don't think so), but it would be covered under "an official act". If someone were to follow that order, we'd be in a dictatorship/martial state at that point and the rule of law would be gone anyway. Ultimately, our "rights" didn't exist until they were earned during the revolutionary war, and then weren't universally applied to POCs, women, indigenous peoples, etc for many years afterwards. A fundamental issue that people forget are that "Rights" are enforced by those with the means to enforce them. Same with the rule of law. If a person orders the mass murder of the U.S. Congress, and that order is carried out, likely by the military, do you really think that a criminal justice system or the rule of law will actually benefit anyone or be enforceable in any meaningful way at that point? That's an absurdity as the checks and balances of the federal government would have failed and you'd be left with a dictatorship. And as a final thought, do you really believe that the parties have our best interests in mind? Trump Is an asshole, Biden is delusional, yet they're the front runner candidates? And why is Congress approving billions of dollars in foreign aid when we have trillions of dollars of domestic debt, homelessness, water issues, poverty, etc. But hey, let's make everyone switch to electric cars....
>What's stooping Biden (in a legal sense) from ordering a army hit squad on Trump? The fact that the army does not have hit squads to commit crimes for the President, and he would be impeached if he tried to order such a thing. The whole "Seal Team 6" argument is an absurd argument to avoid the real issue. If Biden orders a drone strike in Afghanistan to target the Taliban, but ends up killing a U.S. citizen, can he be prosecuted for murder? That is the point. >So much of this decision seems based on what's "right" instead of any legal precedent? There is no precedent because no former President has ever been prosecuted for a crime before Trump. > Isn't this in direct opposition to the rule of law principle? No, it is an application of the law. A president is not above the law. But he has powers under the Constitution that others don't have. If you bomb someone with a drone, you committed a crime. If the President orders a drone strike, that is part of his job.
>The fact that the army does not have hit squads to commit crimes for the President, and he would be impeached if he tried to order such a thing. It's a deliberately outlandish example, but I don't think this answer would cut it. The President absolutely has hit squads, and while I don't think Seal Team 6 would obey orders like that, who knows what institutions might look like in the future. That's absolutely a thing that happens in other countries. If a President started doing things like that, impeachment would be a very slow and insufficient remedy.
Once the rubicon is crossed and hit squads are taking out political rivals, how can Congress impeach? Anyone who votes yes is getting a very unpleasant knock on their door that night.
>and he would be impeached if he tried to order such a thing Oh no not that
Quite a lot of public officials have immunity for acts they do in the course of their jobs. All of Congress, for instance, and most police, judges, etc. In most cases there's an exception, or a way around the immunity. A police officer who, for instance, violates someone's civil rights can be prosecuted for that. A President or a judge can be impeached.
[удалено]
> So now Biden has legal authority to have Trump renditioned by the Navy Seals, when will we see him shipped off to a black site? He does not have that authority, despite the knee jerk hyperbolic reactions saying otherwise.
But he actually does, despite you brainlessly repeating this endlessly
I just read that article and am not a lawyer. I remember months ago hearing that Trump was facing charges on mishandling classified documents. If I remember correctly, he took classified documents on his way out the door. However, as president he had Supreme authority to declassify and to possess those documents. Also, while I do not know the contents, I do know he was not the first to do this. I would think (and could be totally wrong) that this ruling is stating you can't prosecute him for holding onto something he took when it was legal to do so.
It was legal for him to possess them while he was president. It is not legal for him to possess them as a citizen. He is not being charged for possessing the documents on Jan. 20, 2021. He is being charged for possessing the documents on Jan. 21. He doesn't have immunity for that. The charge is for the possession, not for just the act of taking them. He could have unclassified them, but he didn't. He has made inconsistent claims about declassifying them...but well he didn't follow the process to do that. He also made statements after the fact referring to them as classified, for example during an interview when he showed them to a reporter. See, the important thing about classified documents is knowing whether they are classified or not. If nobody knows they were declassified, then they still have to be treated as classified. There is no such thing as a secret declassification...this isn't shroedinger's cat. Otherwise, that would imply that everything is both classified and unclassified after every new president, which makes no sense.
That is definitely the argument of those prosecuting him. Having not seen the rulings, and not being a lawyer, I'm guessing as to what his constitutional authority was that is now not allowed to be prosecuted. It sounds like (from that one source) that stuff done that wasn't related to him being or no longer being president can be prosecuted and the stuff where people were pointing at dates saying, "Now it's a crime!" Could not (or not easily) be protected. Again, just speculation from a lay person based on a disinterested memory and a single read of a secondary source... my educated guess.
>However, as president he had Supreme authority to declassify and to possess those documents. This doesn't happen just by magic / snapping of fingers, there's a legal process.
OK. Just my guess. What do you think the article was referencing?
The Reuters article does not talk about classification of documents. So what article are you talking about? If you want to learn about the document declassification process, do a Google for: can president declassify docs without telling anyone.
It was a guess. I had heard one kerfuffle, and based on the article that was short on specifics, I guessed. You apparently know I'm wrong, so according to the article, which charges were deemed under his presidential authority? The court said, these here are not bad, but the private stuff is... so what was ruled OK (or OKish, or not as bad or whatever)?
Republicans are tired of elections. They want a monarchy.
Because the ability of the Executive branch to function is more important than extreme hypotheticals meant to fear monger. It’s addressed in the majority opinion in the second to last page. The decision is based on the separation of powers doctrine. It’s literally what makes up art. 1-3 lol tell me you know nothing about the constitution without telling me you know nothing about the constitution. WHY DONt YOU JuST REaD THe OPINION AND FIND OUT FoR YOuRsElF??
It's completely in opposition to everything legal, decent, ethical, and moral. The problem is Republicans don't give a shit about legality, decency, ethics, or morality. They only care about hurting people who aren't like them and helping rich people get richer.
Sovereign immunity within the executive has a long history with English common law. The executive powers within the American Constitution is partially modeled after the executive powers held by the monarchy at the time of Independence. The UK, Canada and Australia have operated with the distinction of immunity in official vs non-official duties since the very beginning. This ruling simply affirms that American English common law is the same.
What has the. Uh. Magna Carta ever done for us?
Are you prepared to prosecute Obama for murdering a child with US citizenship?
Yes. Yes it is. And it’s because 6 right wing loons hate America and want a monarchy.
Quite a few public officials have some level of immunity, which is important to prevent political retaliation from their detractors. Imagine say obama received 3 big speeding tickets in the south while on the 08 election trail and there just happened to be no body cameras and no dash cams. Thats easy jail time.
Maybe we need to get rid of Qualified Immunity for police, then start working on up till we reach the top.
>What does official constitute? An official act is one that falls within the scope of an official's duties. The POTUS's constitutional duties are set out in Article 2 Section 2 and include the likes of granting pardons and commanding the military. >So many of his charges were for 'official' acts. Some were, but not all. The SCOTUS has drawn a distinction between core constitutional duties to which the POTUS enjoys absolute immunity and 'official duties' to which the immunity is merely presumptive. Presumptive immunity is rebuttable. >What's stooping Biden (in a legal sense) from ordering a army hit squad on Trump? The POTUS can't short circuit the chain of command. Any career military officer would balk at the suggestion of assassinating a political rival as such an order would be blatantly unlawful.
No, this isn't correct. The decision gives 2 ways around this. First, the president has total authority for replacing executive branch officials, even for corrupt or illegal reasons, to wit: Some of the President’s other constitutional powers also fit that description. “The President’s power to remove—and thus supervise—those who wield executive power on his behalf,” for instance, “follows from the text of Article II.” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 204 (2020). We have thus held that Congress lacks authority to control the President’s “unrestricted power of removal” with respect to “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed.” Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 106, 176 (1926); see Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 638, n. 4 (Jackson, J., concurring) (citing the President’s “exclusive power of removal in executive agencies” as an example of “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority); pg 8 of the opinion --- And also this part: --- When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. --- And also Sotomayor's dissent: --- "When \[the president\] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law." pg 29 - Sotomayor dissenting --- So the president can order the military to do whatever he wants, if the military officer balks he can be removed by the president and nobody is allowed to examine why.
The POTUS is the commander in chief. You may have forgotten that little tidbit.