Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court says Trump has absolute immunity for official acts only
NPR ^ | July 1, 2024 | Nina Totenberg

Posted on 07/01/2024 7:52:52 AM PDT by Dr. Franklin

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, ruled that a former president has absolutely immunity for his core constitutional powers– and is entitled to a presumption of immunity for his official acts, but lack immunity for unofficial acts. . But at the same time, the court sent the case back to the trial judge to determine which, if any of Trump actions, were part of his official duties and thus were protected from prosecution.

That part of the court’s decision likely ensures that the case against Trump won’t be tried before the election, and then only if he is not re-elected. If he is re-elected, Trump could order the Justice Department to drop the charges against him, or he might try to pardon himself in the two pending federal cases.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s decision, joined by his fellow conservatives. Dissenting were the three liberals, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

....

Monday's decision to send the case back to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan all but guarantees that there will be no Trump trial on the election interference charges for months. Even before the immunity case, Judge Chutkan indicated that trial preparations would likely take three months. Now, she will also have to decide which of the charges in the Trump indictment should remain and which involve official acts that under the Supreme Court ruling are protected from prosecution.

Even after Judge Chutkan separates the constitutional wheat from the chaff, Trump could seek further delays, as immunity questions are among the very few that may be appealed prior to trial.

(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ninatotenberg; nlz; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-131 next last
To: 1Old Pro

But Robert’s said, “ Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.”

That phone call was certainly not a high crime or misdemeanor but they made it one out of whole cloth.


61 posted on 07/01/2024 8:32:05 AM PDT by chuck allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: jimfree

In addition, the prosecutor must not only show that the act could be an unofficial act, but that no aspect of the act could be construed to be within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official duties.

Take the speech and texts from Trump on J6. Clearly those could be considered the acts of a candidate, as Trump would have done the same if he had not been president. However, because communicating with the voters on a matter of national importance clearly falls within that “outer perimeter” of presidential duties, and it would be impossible to untangle the two. So I don’t see how any charges related to those communications could stand.


62 posted on 07/01/2024 8:34:00 AM PDT by CA Conservative (Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, I am free at last)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

My read of the decision is that slow Joe has no immunity for any illegal acts, such as, interfering with Hunters prosecution, criminally conspiring with the DOJ to implement political trials against Trump.

I hope that the House impeaches Biden and that when Trump wins, the DOJ investigates Biden and he is convicted as a felon and dies in jail. I know....wishful thinking and he would plead lack of mental capacity or be dead before sentencing.


63 posted on 07/01/2024 8:35:25 AM PDT by Robert357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

if im not mistake, the ruling basically stated that prosecutors can’t just assign nefarious motives to presidents in order to prosecute them because presidents have immunity- because that woudl be like trying ‘thought crimes’?


64 posted on 07/01/2024 8:35:42 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

That is for the best. Keeping the judiciary independent is still the best way to accomplish the goal of your tagline. Thanks for your reply.


65 posted on 07/01/2024 8:36:21 AM PDT by shadowlands1960 (We live in a world of intolerance masked as tolerance. RUSH LIMBAUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

“So his conviction in New York is still there?

“Not an official act, and before he became POTUS, so this precedent doesn’t apply to the NY case.”

Note the dates (and the monthly pattern and the payors):

COUNT VERDICT BUSINESS RECORD DATE
1 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Feb. 14, 2017
2 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457 Feb. 14, 2017
3 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842460 Feb. 14, 2017
4 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000138 Feb. 14, 2017
5 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust March 16, 2017
6 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 846907 March 17, 2017
7 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000147 March 17, 2017
8 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump April 13, 2017
9 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858770 June 19, 2017
10 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002740 June 19, 2017
11 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump May 22, 2017
12 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 855331 May 22, 2017
13 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002700 May 23, 2017
14 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump June 16, 2017
15 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858772 June 19, 2017
16 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002741 June 19, 2017
17 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump July 11, 2017
18 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 861096 July 11, 2017
19 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002781 July 11, 2017
20 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Aug. 1, 2017
21 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 863641 Aug. 1, 2017
22 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002821 Aug. 1, 2017
23 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Sept. 11, 2017
24 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 868174 Sept. 11, 2017
25 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002908 Sept. 12, 2017
26 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Oct. 18, 2017
27 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 872654 Oct. 18, 2017
28 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002944 Oct. 18, 2017
29 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Nov. 20, 2017
30 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 876511 Nov. 20, 2017
31 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002980 Nov. 21, 2017
32 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Dec. 1, 2017
33 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 877785 Dec. 1, 2017
34 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 003006 Dec. 5, 2017

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts

Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust - not a business
Donald J. Trump - not a business


66 posted on 07/01/2024 8:37:20 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Presbyterian Reporter

The question of Jack Smith’s appointment is before the Florida judge.
Hopefully she will now declare him unconstitutionally appointed.


67 posted on 07/01/2024 8:37:49 AM PDT by surrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
In addition, the prosecutor must not only show that the act could be an unofficial act, but that no aspect of the act could be construed to be within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official duties.
Take the speech and texts from Trump on J6. Clearly those could be considered the acts of a candidate, as Trump would have done the same if he had not been president. However, because communicating with the voters on a matter of national importance clearly falls within that “outer perimeter” of presidential duties, and it would be impossible to untangle the two. So I don’t see how any charges related to those communications could stand.


Trump clearly determined there was foreign election interference. That is clear from his meeting with Syndey Powell, Gen. Mike Flynn and others. He had the option of calling forth the militia to address a stolen election. He declined that option in favor of litigation and a peaceful protest. Trump could have done far more consitutionally as POTUS than what he did. If he had, Biden might never have taken the oath of office.
68 posted on 07/01/2024 8:38:15 AM PDT by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

a pundit just stated that prosecutors now can’t use staff notes, or conversations as evidence against a president working on official business- if so, that is huge-


69 posted on 07/01/2024 8:40:02 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

So in a way it a bitter victory? Immune from official acts during the time in office, but unofficial acts can still proceed. Am I reading this right? So all Jack Smith, and his rotten evil to the core judicial branch compadres have to do is change the wording to unofficial act and continue the harassment against President Trump. They did it with the expiration of limitations so they’ll do it here again. They see their candidate, FJB has a fatal wound and they’re going to try to bring Trump to his knees and totally destroy him. It’s an all out war for them now and we’re barely in July. God help us.
*********
No President has absolute immunity. A President can’ commit murder just because he is President—he is President, not King.


70 posted on 07/01/2024 8:40:43 AM PDT by yldstrk ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin
Note the dates (and the monthly pattern and the payors):

It doesn't make it an official act as POTUS. Any reasonable judge would conclude protecting his images is a private act for which no immunity should attach.
71 posted on 07/01/2024 8:41:08 AM PDT by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: shadowlands1960

NPR would be the most rat friendly take on it so factor that in with whatever they say.


72 posted on 07/01/2024 8:43:51 AM PDT by gibsonguy ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin

This case is bogus. It will be overturned. Immunity is not the issue.


73 posted on 07/01/2024 8:44:39 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

The Supreme Court decided the law correctly, but the nature of each of Trump’s actions in legal dispute, whether official in some respect, or just reelection motivated, are still subject to adjudication.


74 posted on 07/01/2024 8:45:15 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Leftists never take the high road or self reflect that they might possibly be wrong. Besides, they’ve got their marching orders.


75 posted on 07/01/2024 8:54:40 AM PDT by subterfuge (I'm a pure-blood!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mercat

I believe it will stand. That trial is on actions before he was president. It will be overturned on legal issues involving misconduct both by the judge and DAs office and violation of his civil rights.


76 posted on 07/01/2024 8:54:59 AM PDT by DownInFlames (P)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Presbyterian Reporter

“The next steps for the Trump Team is to take Jack Smith to court and force a decision as to whether Smith had a legal right to indict Trump.”

It is my understanding that Federal law requires national security cases be prosecuted by a special division within the DoJ.

The head guy I believe is named Jay Brant.


77 posted on 07/01/2024 8:56:19 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

Is it Nina Totenberg’s sister who has been sitting on the GA elections fraud case (where manipulation of the vote tallies remotely was demonstrated in court) for far, far beyond the 3 months she said it would take for her to decide the case?

I wonder what is taking her so long. It seemed pretty cut-and-dried. And another election process hangs in the balance in the meantime. Her delay when she knows that another election could be similarly stolen if she doesn’t act could be understood as election interference all by itself, could it not?

The claims that Trump was acting only in his own interest is blown out of the water by that case, and by what was already demonstrated in that court. The only reason the whole J6 fedsurrection and all the claims about 2020 being honest can even continue is because judges refused to hear the evidence. And now the judge has the evidence but won’t make the clear and obvious ruling that is called for.


78 posted on 07/01/2024 8:57:16 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

Biden and Kamala will walk to the mic. Kamala will do the speaking part. Our democracy is in peril because SCOTUS and Trump. We must focus on Trump. Not dementia Joe. Get a booster of TDS.


79 posted on 07/01/2024 8:57:28 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 ( I'm Proud To Be An Okie From Muskogee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin

I urge you to read the entire 120 page decision. Trump’s legal team should be very happy.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf


80 posted on 07/01/2024 8:57:44 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson