Donald Trump’s Ga. indictment will be impacted by Monday’s SCOTUS ruling

ATLANTA, Ga. (Atlanta News First) - The massive organized crime indictment of Donald Trump and 13 other GOP co-defendants in Georgia will be impacted by Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether the former president is immune from prosecution for his alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot.

The decision, according to CBS News, will impact special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump in Washington, D.C., where the former president has pleaded not guilty to the four charges he is facing.

But a ruling could also have consequences for two other cases involving Trump. One, also brought by Smith, in South Florida involving Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and a second brought by prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia, related to Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the state.

The immunity case, according to the Associated Press, was the last case argued before the nation’s high court, on April 25, but the timing of the court’s resolution of Trump’s immunity may be as important as the eventual ruling.

Thank you. I missed you all too so very much. I will announce any hiatus:).

I’m so glad about SCOTUS’ decision. However, do we want a judge deciding what is official or not? I want to see what the lower courts do with this decision. I’m going to go read SCOTUS’ decision in full.

Navarro is about to be released and Bannon may have to serve some time. When Trump gets back into office, the Dems are going to wish they had never done the things they did.

I have mixed feelings about this decision.

I think you're looking too broadly at the decision.

If the court gives a blanket approval of amnesty then what happens to the process of impeachment.

Impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That has not changed.

What has changed is prosecuting a former President for acts that were taken when in office. The Supreme Court put a stop to criminalizing political differences. If a President was acting in his official capacity (running the Executive branch, meeting with foreign officials, state officials, or members of Congress) then he cannot be prosecuted once leaving office for any actions while doing those things when in office. SCOTUS put a stop to prosecutors trying to find "motive" in the execution of core constitutional duties.

Secondary acts (official acts that are not core constitutional duties), such as public speaking to promote issues or pending bills (the "bully pulpit") is what SCOTUS called the "outer ring" of official acts and is still protected by "presumptive immunity." Such acts that are in furtherance of core official acts, like seeking advice prior to "Presidential decision-making" are fully protected.

SCOTUS remanded back to the lower courts those issues where presumptive immunity is what SCOTUS called "rebutted under the circumstances." SCOTUS said the lower courts must first determine "whether a prosecution of the actions would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive."

After that test, SCOTUS remanded the District Courts to determine in Trump's case whether the acts were official or unofficial acts.

If the ruling is that the President of the US is not immune, then that’s implies every federal, state and local government official is no longer immune.

I don't think so. Again, this is not about prosecution of a President while he's in office. In the case of the President, if he committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" while in office he can be impeached and convicted, then prosecuted. It's when he's no longer in office and the opposition seeks retribution for being beaten on an issue by finding something to punish the former President with by lawfare, that's where immunity is extended.

-PJ

They really need to stall these lawfare cases beyond Trump’s election to inauguration where they canny try him during his Presidency. The reason I say that is any trumped up conviction before inauguration will be processed as impeachment fodder immediately if the Dems take the House. There is no doubt in my mind that a trial in DC will result in a conviction because it is the most friendly judicial forum to Democrats in the US. Think 12 Judge Merchans sitting on a jury. No evidence is necessary to convict a Republican President

Yes. There really wasn’t a question that Presidents should enjoy/need immunity for at least some actions taken as President (e.g., FDR and Nisei Internment in WWII).

The decision throws a big monkey wrench into Democrat plans in dealing with Trump before the election. As it is now, their Hail Mary is Merchan and those repetitive count convictions case where that corrupt judge will likely try to put jail time in for Trump. But that won’t work. Biden will still lose and I believe the DOJ will be decimated. Maybe even a special counsel named to investigate NY County DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan for political persecution involving federal officials (and former officials).

They sat on the cases for over two and a half years to time them all to happen right before the election. Now the left is upset they are being delayed.

These cases have nothing to do with crime or justice. They are designed to interfere with the election, keep Trump off the campaign trail, and bankrupt him.

They are trying to prosecute what may be the cleanest politician in DC and the cleanest businessman in NYC.

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.