Posted on 07/02/2024 1:45:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court Trump v. United States ruling that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution has significant implications for the ongoing legal battles surrounding Donald Trump. This ruling, widely perceived as a victory for Trump, has nuanced elements that warrant closer scrutiny, particularly in the comments made by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The Court’s decision confirmed that presidents are protected from prosecution for official actions extending to the "outer perimeter" of their office, while unofficial conduct remains vulnerable to legal scrutiny. This distinction is crucial, as it provides a pathway for prosecutors to refocus their efforts on Trump's private actions.
Justice Barrett’s comments have created a critical, largely overlooked opening for Democrats and their Special Counsel. Barrett hinted that if prosecutors concentrate exclusively on Trump’s private acts, they might succeed in their legal efforts against him. This insight essentially offers a strategic roadmap for those aiming to hold Trump accountable.
The Biden campaign, or whoever his replacement is, can expedite the laser-focused case against Trump the campaigner, while niftily bogging down his campaign to fight the newly invented legal action. This perspective implies that Trump’s remarks and actions on January 6, for instance, might be reclassified as those of a candidate rather than a president, thus stripping him of immunity for those specific actions.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Or ignoring the SC ruling that he can’t forgive some student loans.
There is nothing illegal about questioning the authenticity of an election. Especially when the poll watchers are kicked out, and 300,000 ballots magically appear at 3am and all count for 1 candidate with no down ballot casting.
Bigger question. Is it illegal to question the vote count?
What difference does it make stupid.
This election integrity thing needs full daylighting. Let is talk about the STEAL in some court or another, what are you robed dudes so skeered of or are you on the take?
Try 900,000
It's new thing. We live in a Nazified USA now. You must never question the government.
You are right. What is illegal about questioning the voter count.
Vote theft is definitely a Presidential concern.
She works overtime to construct the scenario that he would not have immunity, when the same energy could be used to say that he does.
She was on the Heritage list, I’m almost certain.
As POTUS he wants free and FAIR elections, for ALL.
~~~
He is a republican, more even worse, he is the orange bogyman. If he wants a fair election, it’s automatically election interference.
Just like, democrats can actually meddle, interfere with, and profit from their geopolitical contacts.... such as telling a foreign government to fire a prosecutor who is investigating your sun. But a republican can’t asked that same government what happened.
I understand that the context here is the supreme court, but it is still hard to escape the utter disparity and duplicity of our justice system.
Democrats can actively interfere with elections, and nothing happens to them. Republicans try to investigated (a passive act as far as elections being held goes), and they get prosecuted.
Hello republic! Have more bananas!
When Traitorjoe gives aid and comfort to the domestic and foreign enemies of the United States, is he doing it in his official capacity?!?
What could be more official than ensuring the integrity of elections?
Questioning the accuracy of a vote count is not a crime. Red herring.
Asking the question ""When Trump was questioning the accuracy of the vote count, was he doing it in his capacity as the U.S. President or as a candidate running for office" is really asking what President Trump's motive was.
Was he trying to ensure that a free and fair election occurred in Georgia when asking about the number of illegally cast ballots or was he trying to win in Georgia, or both?
Some would argue that the former is a core presidential act and others would argue that the latter was a personal act.
Regardless, SCOTUS said that trying to determine the motive of a President when performing an official act is forbidden by immunity for official acts. Did President Trump have both a Presidential and personal motive in the answer to that question? If the answer is "yes," then the presidential motive moots the personal motive and he is immune from prosecution.
-PJ
So questioning the accuracy of the vote count is illegal... for Republicans
As a voter I was disenfranchised when alleged '3 am' ballots were dumped into the Detroit TCI Center for counting that erased Trump's Michigan lead.
President Trump's official capacity of protecting the sanctity of the vote was in action.
Precisely!!
Roberts included a little something in the decision that would impede them simply classifying Trump’s actions as those of a candidate. If his actions fell within the “outer perimeter” of his duties as president, he is presumptively immune from prosecution for those actions. To overcome that, they would have to prove that prosecuting him for those actions would not hinder or discourage another president from taking appropriate action in a similar situation.
So we assume that Trump questioning the validity of the vote count and talking to state officials about discrepancies in their electoral process can fall comfortably within his duty to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed” by insuring that the election laws were followed. The prosecutor would argue that he did so in his capacity as candidate, and his concern was his own election, not that the laws were being followed. The Roberts decision puts two big stumbling blocks for the prosecution here. The first is that they cannot examine Trump’s motive or intent when determining whether this was an official act, only whether it falls within his official responsibilities. So whether Trump had interests in the outcome as a candidate is irrelevant., only if this qualifies as an official act within his area of responsibility. The second is that prosecuting Trump for this would have a chilling effect on any other president investigating election fraud if he or his party were on the ballot. The opinion states that in this cases like that, immunity would apply to protect the ability of future president to act decisively when needed in that are of their responsibility.
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.