Posted on 07/23/2025 7:25:32 PM PDT by Be Careful
Military tribunals in the United States are designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, typically those designated as unlawful enemy combatants, and operate outside conventional criminal and civil proceedings. They are distinct from courts-martial, which apply to U.S. military personnel under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). As a former president and commander-in-chief, Barack Obama is no longer an active military officer, but he was subject to the UCMJ during his tenure, as the commander-in-chief holds a unique position within the military structure.Theoretically, a former president could be subject to a military tribunal for actions taken while in office if those actions are alleged to constitute serious violations of the laws of war or treason, as defined under the U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 3) or the UCMJ (e.g., Article 104, Aiding the Enemy). Treason, for instance, requires levying war against the United States or adhering to enemies, giving them aid and comfort, with specific intent and overt acts witnessed by at least two people. However, such a case would be unprecedented and face significant legal hurdles. The U.S. Supreme Court in Ex parte Milligan (1866) ruled that military tribunals cannot try civilians in areas where civilian courts are functioning, which would likely apply to a former president unless extraordinary circumstances (e.g., martial law or a declared state of war) were in place.
In practice, no former U.S. president has ever been tried by a military tribunal, and the legal framework for doing so is murky. Federal courts are the standard venue for prosecuting civilians, including former officials, for crimes like treason or espionage. For example, the Military Commissions Act of 2009, which governs modern military tribunals, focuses on non-citizens designated as unlawful enemy combatants, not U.S. citizens or former officials. Moreover, presidential immunity for official acts, as clarified in recent Supreme Court rulings, could shield Obama from prosecution for actions taken within his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, unless clear evidence shows personal misconduct or criminal intent outside those duties.
Some posts on X have speculated that Obama could be tried in a military tribunal for alleged treasonous acts as commander-in-chief, citing his position under the UCMJ. These claims often lack specific evidence and are inconclusive without credible, substantiated allegations meeting the high legal threshold for treason or war crimes. Historically, military tribunals have been controversial when used against civilians, and human rights groups argue they lack the due process protections of federal courts.
In summary, while it’s theoretically possible for a former president to face a military tribunal for specific wartime offenses committed as commander-in-chief, it would require extraordinary evidence and legal justification, likely facing challenges from established precedent favoring civilian courts. No such credible case currently exists against Obama based on available information. If you’re referring to specific allegations, please provide details, and I can assess them further.
Is this why they’re so anxious to remove Pete Hegseth?
I have read the case, and it does not stand for the proposition you claim. The issue is not alleged "criminal intent" - it is whether or not the action falls within the broad scope of presidential duties.
Obama's claim to immunity would be even stronger than Trump's. At least in Trump's case, you could make the argument that his actions were designed to benefit himself personally by leading to him being declared the winner of the election, and that the President has no role within state elections.
Obama was not on the ballot in the 2016 election, and cannot be alleged to have had the same kind of personal interest. His orders also were given to executive branch employees over whom he had direct control, so it was part of his job duties even if the manner he exercised it is argued to have been corrupt.
It is not a question of his intent, but a question of the role he was performing. Claiming that he had a bad motive will not get around an immunity argument.
Feel free to disagree, but if you're waiting for Obama to get indicted based on those actions, you are going to be disappointed.
Criminal intent nullifies any presidential immunity. I’m not waiting for anything. It’s in the SCOTUS case I referenced, those words and intent. They wrote and decided that. Your argument is with SCOTUS, not me.
Have a nice day.
Where is my misreading of the SCOTUS case I reference. Which part? Point it out. You can’t since you haven’t read it. You better keep your mouth shut motherfucker, fuckin lying piece of shit.
Come at me boy
Is there any evidence that Barry from Indonesia was ever a US citizen….? His so called birth certificate is still in question!
There is zero evidence that Barack Obama was ever an Indonesian citizen. He was resident in Indonesia. His father was Kenyan and his mother was American.
His Certificate of Live Birth satisfies the requirements to be an official document of the State of Hawaii.
U.S. Const., Article 4, Sec. 1
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Even if you could prove to your satisfaction that the COLB is a fraud, your only path forward would be to have the State of Hawaii withdraw the document as an official record of the State. As long as it is an official record, it is immune from challenge by the courts of any other state or of the United States.
I have seen no evidence that could withstand scrutiny showing that the COLB was a fraud or that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii.
I think treason is not covered by PI.Did not Trump accuse bamy of treason?
[Az Joe at #12] Obama doesn’t have presidential immunity in this case because he had criminal intent which nullifies any immunity. (See SCOTUS, Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024).)[Az Joe at #23] Criminal intent nullifies any presidential immunity. I’m not waiting for anything. It’s in the SCOTUS case I referenced, those words and intent. They wrote and decided that.
After careful review, I find that neither the term criminal intent, nor the word intent, appear anywhere in the Opinion of the Court. Intent is discussed in the dissenting opinion of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
As for the holding of the Court, the Syllabus encapsulates the holding on presidential immunity.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/603us1r57_6k47.pdf
Trump v United States, 603 US 593 (2024)
Syllabus at 596:
(1) When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes offcial action to perform the functions of his offce. Fitzgerald, 456 U. S., at 757. Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President's authority to take that action. But the breadth of the President's “discretionary responsibilities” under the Constitution and laws of the United States frequently makes it “diffcult to determine which of [his] innumerable `functions' encompassed a particular action.” Id., at 756. The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President's offcial responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC).In dividing offcial from unoffcial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of offcial conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unoffcial 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. Ibid. Pp. 617–619.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor railed against the holding of the Court as follows:
At 659:
The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation's history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifable immunity that puts the President above the law.[...]
Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority's rule, a President's use of any offcial power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. Finally, the majority declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. See ante, at 630–632. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President's offcial acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical.
At 666:
In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump's lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them.IV
A
Setting aside this evidence, the majority announces that former Presidents are “absolute[ly],” ante, at 615, or “at least . . . presumptive[ly],” immune from criminal prosecution for all of their offcial acts, ante, at 614 (emphasis omitted). The majority purports to keep us in suspense as to whether this immunity is absolute or presumptive, but it quickly gives up the game. It explains that, “[a]t a minimum, the President must . . . be immune from prosecution for an offcial act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose ‘no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” Ante, at 615 (emphasis added). No dangers, none at all. It is hard to imagine a criminal prosecution for a President's offcial acts that would pose no dangers of intrusion on Presidential authority in the majority's eyes.
The point of presidential immunity is that it is based on the action taken, not the motive behind the action. Motive would be part of the mens rea criminal inquiry that would kick in only after it was determined that immunity does not apply. But if immunity applies based on the nature of the action, that's the end of the inquiry. You never get to intent/motive.
One line you quoted from the syllabus sums it up unambiguously:
"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives."
Making motive part of the test for immunity would defeat the entire purpose of having immunity in the first place.
Again, thank you.
The nature of the accusation does not determine whether or not immunity applies. You look at the action the President took, and leave aside all questions of intent or motive. So in the case of Obama, the question likely would boil down to something like this:
"If a President tells his subordinates to prepare an intelligence assessment regarding whether an American politician is acting on behalf of, or being influence/assisted by, a foreign government, is that an act within the scope of his official duties as President?"
If you look at that question just as stated, the answer has to be "yes". Saying "well, he knew it was false and was trying to do it anyway to overturn an election" doesn't change the nature of the act as being one within the official duties of the President.
The entire point of immunity is that you never get to questions of motive, truth, self-interest, or merit. Those are going to be subjective determinations that would enable the criminalization of almost anything the President does.
It doesn't mean that what Obama did was right, or good, or justified. It just means he wasn't acting outside the scope of his duties as President.
Wrong again you fuckin idiot
In Trump v. United States, a significant issue revolves around whether presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. A related crucial aspect of the case and potential future criminal proceedings is the requirement of mens rea, or criminal intent.
In the context of the Trump cases, a key element prosecutors will likely need to establish is whether Trump knew the claims of election fraud he disseminated were false. This would aim to prove the knowingly level of mens rea necessary for a conviction.
In essence, mens rea, or criminal intent, is a cornerstone of American criminal law, separating accidental wrongdoing from deliberate criminal behavior. Its presence or absence will be a central factor in determining the outcome of Trump’s legal battles.
We were discussing the issue of Presidential immunity as discussed in Trump v. United States, and whether or not criminal intent is relevant to that immunity determination. THAT was the point being discussed. To quote you directly:
Your post #12): "Obama doesn’t have presidential immunity in this case because he had criminal intent which nullifies any immunity.
You repeated that exact same point in Post #23:
Criminal intent nullifies any presidential immunity.
THAT is your argument that we addressed. You have claimed that language came from the decision, but it didn't. You provided the citation for the case itself, but not the page on which that (alleged) quote was contained. Hmmmmm... Woodpusher then pointed out that the word "intent" doesn't even appear in the majority opinion at all. So your bolded statements above aren't quotes from the actual case -- you just made them up.
Oh, and here's a link to the actual decision itself. Please feel free to find the non-existent pages on which the non-existent language you cited appears. Because...it doesn't.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
In contrast, woodpusher quoted language verbatim from the syllabus. Now in overly-technical fairness, the syllabus is not part of the official decision. However, the following language does come directly from the Opinion itself, P.18. Feel free to go to that link and read the first full paragraph on that page yourself. Here it is:
"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect. Indeed, “[i]t would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government” if “[i]n exercising the functions of his office,” the President was “under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 745 (quoting Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483, 498 (1896))."
Oops. So perhaps realizing you got out too far over your skis, you called me a "fucking idiot", but then shifted your claim to no longer being about immunity at all. Here's your new spin:
"A related crucial aspect of the case and potential future criminal proceedings is the requirement of mens rea, or criminal intent.
Nobody would argue that IF no presidential immunity was found, and a case then proceeded to a subsequent criminal trial, criminal intent would become relevant. But that has NOTHING to do with your bogus claim -- made twice by you and bolded above -- that criminal intent controls the presidential immunity determination itself.
It doesn't. Inquiries into the President's motives, criminal or otherwise, are irrelevant at the immunity stage.
This is like taking candy from a pedophile like you. Read it and weep you fuckin egomaniac blowhard. The SCOTUS didn’t rule on intent or Mens Rea you goddamn fuckin fool
From ChatGPT
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States (2024) focused primarily on the scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, ****rather than on the specific mental state (“MENS REA”) requirements necessary for any underlying criminal charges.***
The Court held that a president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts within the “outer perimeter” of presidential authority, but it left the door open for prosecution based on unofficial conduct.
However, the decision DID NOT evaluate the elements of specific criminal statutes, including whether Trump had the required ***intent (or “MENS REA”)**** to be guilty under those laws. ****THAT ISSUE may be addressed in lower court proceedings, if and when they resume in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity framework.
I am burying you
From Grok
Absolute Immunity for Core Constitutional Powers: The Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity for actions within their “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority (e.g., issuing pardons, recognizing foreign governments, or removing executive officials). For these acts, mens rea or intent is irrelevant because immunity is automatic and cannot be questioned by prosecutors or courts.scotusblog.comaei.org
Presumptive Immunity for Other Official Acts: For official acts outside core constitutional powers (e.g., conversations with Justice Department officials or interactions with the Vice President), the president is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. This presumption can be rebutted if the government shows that prosecuting the act would not intrude on the executive branch’s authority or functions. The Court explicitly stated that immunity for official acts does not depend on the president’s motives or intent, meaning mens rea is largely irrelevant in determining immunity for these acts. However, the prosecution can still proceed if it overcomes the presumption, focusing on the act’s impact rather than the president’s state of mind.scotusblog.comvox.com
No Immunity for Unofficial Acts: The Court held that there is no immunity for unofficial or private acts (e.g., actions taken as a private citizen or candidate). For these acts, mens rea and intent are fully relevant, as the president is treated like any other criminal defendant, and standard criminal law principles, including intent, apply.scotusblog.com
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasized that immunity for official acts is rooted in separation of powers principles, not the president’s subjective intent. The Court also ruled that evidence of official acts subject to immunity cannot be used to prove intent or other elements of a crime involving unofficial acts, further limiting the relevance of mens rea for immune conduct.pbs.orgnytimes.com
Critics, including the dissenting justices (Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson), argued that this framework effectively shields presidents from accountability for criminal intent when using official powers, citing hypothetical examples like ordering assassinations or coups. However, the majority countered that immunity is necessary to protect an “energetic” executive and that unofficial acts remain fully prosecutable.reuters.comaei.org
In summary, the Court did not grant full immunity for all presidential acts. Immunity is absolute for core powers, presumptive for other official acts (with mens rea largely irrelevant in both cases), and nonexistent for unofficial acts, where intent is fully considered. The case was remanded to lower courts to determine which of Trump’s specific actions in the 2020 election interference case were official or unofficial, leaving open the possibility of prosecution for non-immune conduct.
I just fucked you up the ass and came. Don’t you ever challenge me again chester
From Grok
Stopped reading right there, bud.
Here's a piece of free advice - never go full Michael Cohen. It just doesn't end well.
Toodles!
So, we should just hump our shoulders and forget about the dim's trying to throw Trump in jail....until the next time maybe? Because they will you know...
You know, the one that had your GED on the back of the box.
The Supreme Court did the right thing in cramming that particular piece of insanity back into the box where it belonged. I think it is a bad idea for the country for President Trump or his administration to try to undermine the very decision that confirmed presidential immunity.
Aside from that, it's just a dumb move politically. When the Supreme Court came out and clarified presidential immunity, leading to those cases being dropped, that helped candidate Trump and the GOP politically. Most of the country will still look at the winner of a Supreme Court decision as having been in the right, and the loser as having attempted to undermine the law.
It turned out that the majority of the American people didn't like the weaponization of their justice system. Fancy that. So why give Obama and the Democrats an equivalent political victory when he inevitably wins his own court decisions in those same immunity grounds?
If there are underlings for whom a prosecution can be brought with a good chance of success, fine. But going after Obama himself is a bad idea.
Well, I'm not a lawyer or nothing but I think the difference between the two situations is the case against Trump was a pile of hooey, and that against Obama and his crew, from what we read, is a real and a factual case of treason....seemingly so anyway.
If something isn't done to stop the political tomfoolery the rat-crats will continue to do their thing until all of DC is in the toilet. Well, it might be too late to prevent that but maybe we can salvage something. (?)
You may well be right about that, but it won't matter in terms of the immunity argument. That argument depends on the nature of the actions, not whether they were justified or done in good faith. Obama would have an even stronger immunity argument than did Trump.
But Clapper and the rest of them don't get immunity, so if the evidence is there, you could go after all of them. Though I don't think it constitutes "treason", there may be some other crime that fits better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.