Presidential Immunity: Trump v. US

Technofog Substack ^ | 7/2/24 | technofog

[CFW]

Now let’s get to it. For background, Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing for the majority, answered the following question:

“Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

The Court provided three answers based on the classifications of the President’s conduct:

A President has absolute immunity when he exercises his core constitutional powers: “Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the re­sponsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitu­tion.”

A President has presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. This covers actions “so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”

A President has no immunity for his unofficial acts.

[snip][snip]lots of snips.

We conclude with the New York case.

Important to the New York case is the Supreme Court’s discussion that a prosecutor cannot “invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is im­mune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.” A prosecutor may not “admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself,” as this presents a “unique risk” that the jury’s deliberations would be prejudiced.

During the trial, Judge Merchan allowed evidence of then-President Trump’s Tweets, public statements, and oval office meetings. As Trump’s attorneys argued yesterday, “this official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury.” This is no mere harmless error. While it’s doubtful that Judge Merchan agrees (he’s almost anti-Trump as Judge Chutkan), this is solid grounds for appeal.

[CFW]

Technofog has a long article, but it is worth the read if you are interested.

[Tell It Right]

If the name of the case expressed the real opponents, it’d be Trump vs the Deep State That’s Trying to Destroy America.

[rktman]

Thanks! Probably lots of lawyers gonna make lots of money out of this.

[wildcard_redneck]

From what I read of that article all prosecutions against the president except the New York hush money trial are pretty much dead in the water. The New York hush money conviction could be forced to be retried because they used privileged witnesses and communications during their trial and may be forced to declare a mistrial. If that happens I do not believe that the communist DP has the political capital to retry the case, especially if President Trump wins the election. I believe the Supreme Court ruling was an almost total victory for President Trump.

[CFW]

Yeah, no wonder the democrat voters are spinning in their graves right now.

[hardspunned]

Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution. If Trump is guilty of anything, he’s guilty of not taking more aggressive action to defend the Constitution during the coup.

[Gene Eric]

lol

[Phlyer]

I believe the Supreme Court ruling was an almost total victory for President Trump.

I would say that it is a total victory for the Constitution, and I am amazed.

It should be self-evident that a President has immunity for acts taken in meeting Constitutionally-defined responsibilities, not the least of which is that no other branch has *any* Constitutional authority to assess those, except through the impeachment process.

Nonetheless, this decision does *not* protect a rogue president from clearly unConstitutional acts of the sort that the hair-on-fire authoritarians are screaming about. It tells one a lot that the first thing they think of when there is a decision like this is what they would try to do with that opening.

So I'll go back to your comment and agree that it is an almost total victory for President Trump. The only limitation was that the Supreme Court could have defined the difference between official and unofficial acts - but in the lawyer-dominated (which is not the same as 'justice dominated') judicial system, it was pretty much automatic to take those sorts of questions back to a lower level.

[laplata]

Thumbs up!

[bigbob]

Roberts did us a solid with these words:

“acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. This covers actions “so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”

He could have left it more vague, but “outer perimeter” is an interesting description as it clearly means a prosecutor would need to meet a high standard of proof.

The Court had to balance the constitutional power given to the Executive against the potential for an out-of-control President. And now that this decision is on the books, future Presidents will know to safeguard themselves by making certain they act within “official boundaries”.

[Macoozie]

Would be nice if they recognized Citizen’s immunity from criminal prosecution for inalienable rights specifically protected from government intrusion by the Constitution.

But that would mean plain reading of said document.
Oh, to he so bold!

[griswold3]

💯