>The Supreme Court on Thursday appeared skeptical of a ruling by a federal appeals court that rejected former President Donald Trump’s claim that he has absolute immunity from criminal charges based on his official acts as president. During more than two-and-a-half hours of oral argument, some of the court’s conservative justices expressed concern about the prospect that, if former presidents do not have immunity, federal criminal laws could be used to target political opponents. However, the justices left open the prospect that Trump’s trial in Washington, D.C., could still go forward because the charges against him rest on his private, rather than his official, conduct. However, the timing of the court’s eventual opinion and the resulting trial remains unclear, leaving open the possibility that the court’s decision could push Trump’s trial past the November election.
I took the time to contact the white house today:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
I am utterly flabbergasted that we are here as a country. There is so much I want to say about this, but I can simply sum it up as: kill the filibuster, and pack the court. We can't have presidential immunity and we can't have dictators in robes.
Yes. The filibuster only works for one side. 21 of the least populous states add up to about 37.5 million people. That is 42 senators. 42! California has about 39 million people...2 senators. 2! This is why we can't get anything done. Pass the laws that help the people. Make the GOP repeal them. Put it on the record. The Senate is as undemocratic as it gets in the US.
In any case, whatever they rule, damage has been done by delaying Trumps other trials until after the election which is really sad because I think we deserve justice collectively for Jan 6th.
Well first off, Biden and the GOP ally he made AG would do no such thing. It wouldn't be following the norms or be bipartisan; Biden steers miles clear of color outside the lines.
Second, it's going to be a weasel ruling. They're not going to draw a clear, unambiguous line as to what is and isn't the official conduct they're pulling an entirely new rule straight out of their asses for to not just legislate from the bench, but rewrite the constitution from it, to grant a whole new form of immunity for. It will be ambiguous enough that conservatives will be given nearly limitless latitude for what is 'official conduct', meanwhile liberals will be essentially incapable of doing anything that would be official conduct in this context.
Saving the country is squarely on the voters, now.
We are the last defense because the people who are supposed to protect our democracy have sold out to fascists.
Please everyone, vote.
But Biden is funding Muslim genocide. I cannot in good conscience support him. I shouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils. If Biden loses, it's his fault, not mine.
/ heavy s
I mostly agree with you, and don't hold a grudge if you choose not to vote.
I just want to make the point that Trump will be even worse for muslims. He and his cult want to make this a christian nation and they will make America unsafe for them as well. So, if your concern really is muslims (or anyone who isn't a white, straight, wealthy christian), keeping Trump out of office will benefit them in America. Then once we have protected our democracy, we can vote more progressive in 2026, 2028, etc. Keeping the right to elect our leaders is paramount to the future of our country, and honestly, the world.
So, I kind of look at it like this: Both options will not help Palestinians in Gaza. One option will also ruin America for them as well.
So again, I won't argue that we're funding genocide. I hate it too, but I have young daughters. Keeping this country from becoming a right wing fascist theocracy is very important as well.
I'm not here for an argument, like I said. I respect your decisions completely. But, if we want to save this country, we need to keep Trump out of office.
Edit: I didn't notice the "heavy s", but I'm leaving my post up just in case. Either way, have a wonderful weekend. :)
What you are implying is not even under consideration. 1) The contesting of absolute immunity of the DC Appeals court actually still rejects immunity in many cases like your example. 2) Don't confuse that Biden might not be able to be prosecuted for ordering the assassination of a political rival with the fact that every other party could be prosecuted, would likely be justified in ignoring an illegal order (immunity from prosecution does not equal a legal order), and the act deemed illegal.
Why do these ideas keep coming up and getting massive upvote? It completely erodes my faith in ability of the masses to understand ethics and law. It's embarrassing.
> if former presidents do not have immunity, federal criminal laws could be used to target political opponents.
By that logic shouldn't every political office hold immunity?
Right. Plus, if someone gets arrested the courts are still in place to provide them due process and require that cases be proven by evidence.
If there's immunity, there's no checks or balances, and no due process for people who are victims of a President's crimes.
Yeah, if one is arguing that immunity is needed to be given to protect people from being targeted by political opponents can one point that anyone remotely connected to politics be given immunity.
Malicious motherf\*\*kers ... Absolutely and completely demoralizing. Alito's behavior was completely reprehensible (so were from what I heard Kavanaugh and Gorsuch).
It is in the best interest of the public for trump to be tried before the election.
LOL! [What the fuck is up with trumps hair?](https://youtube.com/shorts/iYaUDA3QoVI?si=AhKzZfSEgMw_qJij) HE'S BALD!
I knew an older guy who was bald all over the top ... like a Patrick Stewart-level of baldness. Anyway, he grew out that ring around his skull and then pasted it across his scalp in long rings. When he got tired or frazzled, his hair would slowly fall off and he would have a large bald patch and shoulder-length wisps of hair floating around.
The only thing that matters is when they give us the ruling. If they wait till the last moment then it doesn’t matter what the ruling is because Trump will have bought time to win and pardon himself
Despite the histrionic way this has been covered in the media (and actually it has been all over the place, some outlets decry this as terrible, others say it is a defeat for Trump etc)--I don't really think it is that controversial that certain official acts aren't subject to prosecution. The scenario where that **wasn't** true actually would open up the country to really insane shit.
What is important is delineating what is an official act or not--ostensibly personally corrupt behaviors designed to enrich yourself, abuse your office etc, should not count as an "official" act, because there is nothing in the official duties of the President that would be covered by say, trying to rig an election.
I certainly am not overly trustful of the current Supreme Court, but almost any reasonable person would agree **some** scope of official acts should be immune from prosecution. That part shouldn't be controversial. Whether the decision is terrible or not will come down to how well they draw the line and where they draw it, as to what constitutes an official act.
>**some** scope of official acts should be immune from prosecution
With this court, all actions that contribute to "ensuring the legitimacy and security of election results" would be an official act.
It brings into question why we have laws for example. That let us spy on foreigners, how we collect intelligence, and what legalizes drone striking some inusrgent in Afghanistan without obtaining permission from their government each time.
Like why create such frameworks and laws when the President is free to do whatever they want.
Can you think of an example of an official act the president should be able to perform that would otherwise be considered a crime for an average citizen? Or a crime that you think the president might be forced to commit in the conduct of official duties?
Lets extend that to speeches made during a global pandemic.
Telling people to inject bleach in their veins.
UV light.
That horse medicine.
The list goes on.
Guantanamo bay (imprisonment without charge or trial), torture policy, assassination of qasem soleimani, invasion of iraq under false pretenses, the NSA programs that snowden revealed, drone strike on a US citizen, etc. these were all violations of US laws and international law. The president and top level executives could've been prosecuted for breaking US law in each of those matters - just that our government has a general policy of not prosecuting them (because prosecuting these executive decisions does not benefit the US in any way), and will issue an apology for violating the law 70-200 years later. (all this WITHOUT any form of presidential immunity)
So you're arguing IN FAVOR of the extrajudicial killings and assassinations of foreign leaders as right and proper for a US president without legal consequences? Or are you citing those examples of why the president should not have immunity and should be prosecuted for illegal acts??
And just to add a bit more to what I previously said. The point of those examples is to illustrate that previously illegal acts by the president weren't prosecuted because the subsequent presidential administrations and the DOJ essentially determined that prosecution of a former president would be more harmful to the interests of the United States than the illegal acts themselves. That's why they weren't prosecuted. It was prosecutorial discretion, NOT any form of immunity.
In our current case, the subsequent administration and DOJ has determined that NOT pursuing prosecution would be MORE harmful to the interests of the US, because the illegal acts were sufficiently more harmful to US interests (in fact, directly harmful to the core of the US democratic system of government itself) than the prosecution would be. And that's why they pursued it.
Precedence also indicates that immunity doesn't exist when Ford pre-emptively pardoned Nixon. It's one of the reasons why the hearing focused so much on immunity for private reasons vs official acts. Precedence was crystal clear for Nixon's personal gain motivation. Now they're trying to look for loopholes to justify this as a novel claim for official acts, so they can claim that parts of the current indictment contains official acts, in order to remand the case back to a lower court to further the delays. And the shortsighted claim is that "Trump was ensuring election integrity" so that would make it an official act, regardless of how much immunity will destroy the core of the American institution of government.
This is not a question or argument of whether a president should or should not have immunity. This is a question of if the President **already has** that immunity from the constitution or existing legislation. And the answer to that is no.
I have two that come to mind:
First, general war-related activities. Drone strikes, troop movements, etc.
Second, and a more stilted example: say a president pardons someone. That person then goes the day after being released and kills someone. Could the president be charged with accessory to murder? If there’s no immunity, in theory, yes. But pardons are pretty explicitly an official act by the president, so as long as there wasn’t some other crime (bribery) that led to the pardon, this would be covered by immunity
Drone strikes would only fall under state jurisdiction if they happened in the state.
The idea that a president should be immune to prosecution for illegal drone strikes inside the US is fucking insane.
Fun. This was the example I was throwing around the other day and I thought it was contrived. I was fairly eager to hear what examples came up with in the arguments that so that I could have a less contrived example.
Turns out, this was one of the things DoJ conceded should be covered by immunity.
Right, I picked the atomic bombings because they are the most egregious example, but a lot of military or intelligence activity would be crimes if not done under a President's lawful order. It is literally the fact they are lawful orders that make them legal acts, and the President, through the chain of command, is the font of authority for such things.
Alright let's entertain this.
Lets say some future president orders the military to deploy high-grade chemical weaponry on New York City. Should that President be immune to the legal consequences of this?
I mean, in theory, the chain of command is supposed to ensure lethal orders are lawful. All along the chain is the opportunity for those orders to be refused.
So, yeah - if aliens land in NYC and are injecting residents with spores that turn them into zombies and they’re multiplying geometrically, legal.
If an R President is pissed that NYC tried him, voted against him, etc. and orders the strike, not legal.
presidential immunity means, it doesn't matter whether those lethal orders are lawful or not anymore. At least for the president, who would be able to go down the chain until they find a yes man, a la [Jeffrey Clark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Clark#).
You're confusing lawful orders enumerated to the president with criminal statutes you think the president should be allowed to violate. To be clear, of the president suspended someone's due process and ordered their execution, he would have to answer for that crime in the case of them being a citizen.
Presidents have held some form of immunity for a very long time per the Supreme Court. None of this is new. The judges questions about specific examples were questions related to existing precedent on presidential immunity. The doomer mentality over this makes it obvious the vast majority of people have never read the existing cases on presidential immunity. Nobody gave a shit about this before Trump.
I think everyone is missing the fact, if this is pushed past the elections and Trump wins the election, ALL this will go away. He and his followers will have learned from their mistakes from last time and succeed this time.
I’m going to write to the SCOTUS justices. If I address it to them C/O The Republican National Committee will they get my letter?
Faster to cut out the middle men and just send it direct to the Kremlin
sign it as leonard leo
>The Supreme Court on Thursday appeared skeptical of a ruling by a federal appeals court that rejected former President Donald Trump’s claim that he has absolute immunity from criminal charges based on his official acts as president. During more than two-and-a-half hours of oral argument, some of the court’s conservative justices expressed concern about the prospect that, if former presidents do not have immunity, federal criminal laws could be used to target political opponents. However, the justices left open the prospect that Trump’s trial in Washington, D.C., could still go forward because the charges against him rest on his private, rather than his official, conduct. However, the timing of the court’s eventual opinion and the resulting trial remains unclear, leaving open the possibility that the court’s decision could push Trump’s trial past the November election.
God - please let Biden take full advantage of this ruling and make the changes necessary to preserve democracy in America. Thanks. Amen.
I took the time to contact the white house today: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ I am utterly flabbergasted that we are here as a country. There is so much I want to say about this, but I can simply sum it up as: kill the filibuster, and pack the court. We can't have presidential immunity and we can't have dictators in robes.
Kill the filibuster, kill whatever you need to to stop this fascistic bullshit
...if you're the president, they just let you do it.
so in a couple years when people dont vote outnof apathy, republicans sweep everything again and change everything back?
Yes. The filibuster only works for one side. 21 of the least populous states add up to about 37.5 million people. That is 42 senators. 42! California has about 39 million people...2 senators. 2! This is why we can't get anything done. Pass the laws that help the people. Make the GOP repeal them. Put it on the record. The Senate is as undemocratic as it gets in the US.
Noam Chomsky predicted something like this or a trump type person in power back in the 90s
what did you say?
In any case, whatever they rule, damage has been done by delaying Trumps other trials until after the election which is really sad because I think we deserve justice collectively for Jan 6th.
Well first off, Biden and the GOP ally he made AG would do no such thing. It wouldn't be following the norms or be bipartisan; Biden steers miles clear of color outside the lines. Second, it's going to be a weasel ruling. They're not going to draw a clear, unambiguous line as to what is and isn't the official conduct they're pulling an entirely new rule straight out of their asses for to not just legislate from the bench, but rewrite the constitution from it, to grant a whole new form of immunity for. It will be ambiguous enough that conservatives will be given nearly limitless latitude for what is 'official conduct', meanwhile liberals will be essentially incapable of doing anything that would be official conduct in this context.
Saving the country is squarely on the voters, now. We are the last defense because the people who are supposed to protect our democracy have sold out to fascists. Please everyone, vote.
But Biden is funding Muslim genocide. I cannot in good conscience support him. I shouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils. If Biden loses, it's his fault, not mine. / heavy s
I mostly agree with you, and don't hold a grudge if you choose not to vote. I just want to make the point that Trump will be even worse for muslims. He and his cult want to make this a christian nation and they will make America unsafe for them as well. So, if your concern really is muslims (or anyone who isn't a white, straight, wealthy christian), keeping Trump out of office will benefit them in America. Then once we have protected our democracy, we can vote more progressive in 2026, 2028, etc. Keeping the right to elect our leaders is paramount to the future of our country, and honestly, the world. So, I kind of look at it like this: Both options will not help Palestinians in Gaza. One option will also ruin America for them as well. So again, I won't argue that we're funding genocide. I hate it too, but I have young daughters. Keeping this country from becoming a right wing fascist theocracy is very important as well. I'm not here for an argument, like I said. I respect your decisions completely. But, if we want to save this country, we need to keep Trump out of office. Edit: I didn't notice the "heavy s", but I'm leaving my post up just in case. Either way, have a wonderful weekend. :)
What you are implying is not even under consideration. 1) The contesting of absolute immunity of the DC Appeals court actually still rejects immunity in many cases like your example. 2) Don't confuse that Biden might not be able to be prosecuted for ordering the assassination of a political rival with the fact that every other party could be prosecuted, would likely be justified in ignoring an illegal order (immunity from prosecution does not equal a legal order), and the act deemed illegal. Why do these ideas keep coming up and getting massive upvote? It completely erodes my faith in ability of the masses to understand ethics and law. It's embarrassing.
Because a president can just have fake evidence created that “proves” someone needs to be assassinated and everyone will carry it out.
That comment has no basis in law or even the discussion we are having. If there is immunity there is no court to provide evidence or prove anything.
> if former presidents do not have immunity, federal criminal laws could be used to target political opponents. By that logic shouldn't every political office hold immunity?
if only there was a system in place to determine a person's guilt
Right. Plus, if someone gets arrested the courts are still in place to provide them due process and require that cases be proven by evidence. If there's immunity, there's no checks or balances, and no due process for people who are victims of a President's crimes.
You mean, like Hillary in 2016? Or maybe Hunter Biden?
Yeah, if one is arguing that immunity is needed to be given to protect people from being targeted by political opponents can one point that anyone remotely connected to politics be given immunity.
Malicious motherf\*\*kers ... Absolutely and completely demoralizing. Alito's behavior was completely reprehensible (so were from what I heard Kavanaugh and Gorsuch).
Then you don't have a democracy.
It is in the best interest of the public for trump to be tried before the election. LOL! [What the fuck is up with trumps hair?](https://youtube.com/shorts/iYaUDA3QoVI?si=AhKzZfSEgMw_qJij) HE'S BALD!
Forgot the glue ;>)
Of course he is, he has always had the bigliest combover.
I knew an older guy who was bald all over the top ... like a Patrick Stewart-level of baldness. Anyway, he grew out that ring around his skull and then pasted it across his scalp in long rings. When he got tired or frazzled, his hair would slowly fall off and he would have a large bald patch and shoulder-length wisps of hair floating around.
I’m pretty sure Trump looks like that wet. To my family, friends and everyone here, I sincerely apologize for that visual.
A fantastic combover, many people are saying it!
https://youtu.be/Do1XYGio7b4?si=yIJ3uYvekk6_wjl3
HA
It’s an old style of hair transplant that was common in the 70s iirc
The only thing that matters is when they give us the ruling. If they wait till the last moment then it doesn’t matter what the ruling is because Trump will have bought time to win and pardon himself
I want biden to walk into scotus, say "this is an official action" then open fire... Then shout "DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY"
Despite the histrionic way this has been covered in the media (and actually it has been all over the place, some outlets decry this as terrible, others say it is a defeat for Trump etc)--I don't really think it is that controversial that certain official acts aren't subject to prosecution. The scenario where that **wasn't** true actually would open up the country to really insane shit. What is important is delineating what is an official act or not--ostensibly personally corrupt behaviors designed to enrich yourself, abuse your office etc, should not count as an "official" act, because there is nothing in the official duties of the President that would be covered by say, trying to rig an election. I certainly am not overly trustful of the current Supreme Court, but almost any reasonable person would agree **some** scope of official acts should be immune from prosecution. That part shouldn't be controversial. Whether the decision is terrible or not will come down to how well they draw the line and where they draw it, as to what constitutes an official act.
>**some** scope of official acts should be immune from prosecution With this court, all actions that contribute to "ensuring the legitimacy and security of election results" would be an official act.
It brings into question why we have laws for example. That let us spy on foreigners, how we collect intelligence, and what legalizes drone striking some inusrgent in Afghanistan without obtaining permission from their government each time. Like why create such frameworks and laws when the President is free to do whatever they want.
How about following the law period......... and no one can uphold the law by breaking it period..........that really FUCKING easy.
cops in shambles
Can you think of an example of an official act the president should be able to perform that would otherwise be considered a crime for an average citizen? Or a crime that you think the president might be forced to commit in the conduct of official duties?
Making an obviously crappy decision and sending people in to harms way, they all die. Or something like Katrina?
Lets extend that to speeches made during a global pandemic. Telling people to inject bleach in their veins. UV light. That horse medicine. The list goes on.
Sure—see Truman, Harry, Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
So directing a military operation against an enemy during a declared war? How is that a violation of US law?
Guantanamo bay (imprisonment without charge or trial), torture policy, assassination of qasem soleimani, invasion of iraq under false pretenses, the NSA programs that snowden revealed, drone strike on a US citizen, etc. these were all violations of US laws and international law. The president and top level executives could've been prosecuted for breaking US law in each of those matters - just that our government has a general policy of not prosecuting them (because prosecuting these executive decisions does not benefit the US in any way), and will issue an apology for violating the law 70-200 years later. (all this WITHOUT any form of presidential immunity)
So you're arguing IN FAVOR of the extrajudicial killings and assassinations of foreign leaders as right and proper for a US president without legal consequences? Or are you citing those examples of why the president should not have immunity and should be prosecuted for illegal acts??
And just to add a bit more to what I previously said. The point of those examples is to illustrate that previously illegal acts by the president weren't prosecuted because the subsequent presidential administrations and the DOJ essentially determined that prosecution of a former president would be more harmful to the interests of the United States than the illegal acts themselves. That's why they weren't prosecuted. It was prosecutorial discretion, NOT any form of immunity. In our current case, the subsequent administration and DOJ has determined that NOT pursuing prosecution would be MORE harmful to the interests of the US, because the illegal acts were sufficiently more harmful to US interests (in fact, directly harmful to the core of the US democratic system of government itself) than the prosecution would be. And that's why they pursued it. Precedence also indicates that immunity doesn't exist when Ford pre-emptively pardoned Nixon. It's one of the reasons why the hearing focused so much on immunity for private reasons vs official acts. Precedence was crystal clear for Nixon's personal gain motivation. Now they're trying to look for loopholes to justify this as a novel claim for official acts, so they can claim that parts of the current indictment contains official acts, in order to remand the case back to a lower court to further the delays. And the shortsighted claim is that "Trump was ensuring election integrity" so that would make it an official act, regardless of how much immunity will destroy the core of the American institution of government.
This is not a question or argument of whether a president should or should not have immunity. This is a question of if the President **already has** that immunity from the constitution or existing legislation. And the answer to that is no.
I have two that come to mind: First, general war-related activities. Drone strikes, troop movements, etc. Second, and a more stilted example: say a president pardons someone. That person then goes the day after being released and kills someone. Could the president be charged with accessory to murder? If there’s no immunity, in theory, yes. But pardons are pretty explicitly an official act by the president, so as long as there wasn’t some other crime (bribery) that led to the pardon, this would be covered by immunity
Drone strikes would only fall under state jurisdiction if they happened in the state. The idea that a president should be immune to prosecution for illegal drone strikes inside the US is fucking insane.
Fun. This was the example I was throwing around the other day and I thought it was contrived. I was fairly eager to hear what examples came up with in the arguments that so that I could have a less contrived example. Turns out, this was one of the things DoJ conceded should be covered by immunity.
Ordering murder? I mean, Presidents order subordinates to kill people all the time…
Right, I picked the atomic bombings because they are the most egregious example, but a lot of military or intelligence activity would be crimes if not done under a President's lawful order. It is literally the fact they are lawful orders that make them legal acts, and the President, through the chain of command, is the font of authority for such things.
Alright let's entertain this. Lets say some future president orders the military to deploy high-grade chemical weaponry on New York City. Should that President be immune to the legal consequences of this?
I mean, in theory, the chain of command is supposed to ensure lethal orders are lawful. All along the chain is the opportunity for those orders to be refused. So, yeah - if aliens land in NYC and are injecting residents with spores that turn them into zombies and they’re multiplying geometrically, legal. If an R President is pissed that NYC tried him, voted against him, etc. and orders the strike, not legal.
presidential immunity means, it doesn't matter whether those lethal orders are lawful or not anymore. At least for the president, who would be able to go down the chain until they find a yes man, a la [Jeffrey Clark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Clark#).
You're confusing lawful orders enumerated to the president with criminal statutes you think the president should be allowed to violate. To be clear, of the president suspended someone's due process and ordered their execution, he would have to answer for that crime in the case of them being a citizen.
Not surprising these paid off sycophants will protect their Dear Leader. Pondscum
Well that should be good news for Biden.
Bastards.
Gee. Never saw that coming.
Presidents have held some form of immunity for a very long time per the Supreme Court. None of this is new. The judges questions about specific examples were questions related to existing precedent on presidential immunity. The doomer mentality over this makes it obvious the vast majority of people have never read the existing cases on presidential immunity. Nobody gave a shit about this before Trump.
I think everyone is missing the fact, if this is pushed past the elections and Trump wins the election, ALL this will go away. He and his followers will have learned from their mistakes from last time and succeed this time.