Posted on 07/01/2024 7:48:23 AM PDT by Tench_Coxe
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.
The Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
RE: The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.
Which leads to the next question— were Trump’s actions during the election results dispute considered OFFICIAL or UNOFFICIAL?
The SCOTUS didn’t resolve this at all.
Justice Thomas is a national treasure. I pray that he has a long life and is willing to stay on the supreme court until his replacement can be a true constitutional conservative.
Trump now only has one case tio worry about, the NY sentencing on 34 counts of July 11 but it may be that the sentencing wil have to be postponed becease the case depends on a predicate federal offence, which may yield immunity as a former president.
However, it leaves it to anti-trump dc courts to decide whether anything is official or unofficial. In reading the opinion, I was left with the impression they considered the j6 rally an unofficial proceeding.
Great decision. Makes some inroads going forward into dismantling lawfare against a President performing official duties by disallowing the lawfare folks and judges from prosecuting Presidents for political motivation they do not like while performing those official duties. Might even be applicable to Foni Fanny’s Georgia case if Trump decides to raise the immunity issue down there.
Yes, healthy delays, well past elections.
The SC says no one has determined what is a constitutional action vs. unconstitutional, and sent it back to the lower court, but no court would begin to create a list of what actions belong in which category.
Every questioned action going forward will need to be singularly judicated.
A very sharp insight, Candor.
I completely missed that.
Was there even a predicate "act" by Trump?
Nothing that was proved at trial, from my perspective.
How much were Biden’s actions considered in this ruling? Biden has been even worse with disregarding court rulings or attacking a ruling from another direction. The Supreme Court needs to also product current and future Presidents. If not then watch out!
Instead, I listened to Van Jones pontificate on how this decision will now energize the Dem base.
So, it’s a great day for Biden and his party, dontcha know.
According to this section of the US Code, President Trump's speech on January 6 didn't even meet the definition of incitement to riot. How can it then meet the definition of obstructing a government proceeding?
In 18 U.S. Code Chapter 102 - RIOTS, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions, is this:
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.President Trump spoke of his belief that he won the election, and then asked the attendees to peacefully walk to the Capitol to show the lawmakers their support for President Trump. That meets the exception to the "to incite a riot" definition.
The actual rioters who broke in the Capitol must defend their own actions, but US Code says that President Trump's actions did not incite these people to act.
President Trump's speech on January 6 didn't meet the federal definition of incitement to riot. How can it then meet the definition of obstructing a government proceeding?
-PJ
if only you and me could sit on a DC jury
“My kickbacks from the Chicoms, Ukes, Romanians, et al, were the result of my official actions, so screw you.”
Anything short of murdering someone or robbing a bank, everything the President does while in office is official.
Nothing that was proved at trial, from my perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But that predicate was in the indictement or in the prosecutions closing argument.
Its a huge mess.It will be in the courts for the next three years or more.
I would guess that actual treason would still be prosecutable ... but maybe not.
AOC to File ‘Articles of Impeachment’ Following Supreme Court Immunity Ruling: ‘Corruption Crisis Beyond Its Control’
Not only that, the Georgia Supremes are going to kick her off the case, and no prosecutor will take it up from there.
I predict those that already plead guilty will also ask for subsequent judgement.
Not while IN OFFICE. There must be an impeachment, conviction and removal first, then once they are removed, prosecute until your hearts’ content
Yes I saw it that way too.
Trump can (and has) counter spun his J6 actions were official, part of his duty to see that the law was correctly and faithfully observed. There’s no way one can say overseeing federal election law is an exception to that. Yes, he’s wearing multiple hats with overlapping interests, but that is inevitable for the Executive the Framers provided.
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.