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 ...
...and if not, then Biden better start clocking out whenever he is campaigning.
.
Here’s the answer and Amy knows it.
If Joe Biden is contesting the Election, it’s 100% Official Action of his office.
He has all the Privileges to protect his communication with aides and advisers, too.
Trump is not covered and will face Congressional action, Executive action (DOJ), and the SCOTUS will join them to get him.
Well said.
Why can’t he question the vote count?
What “official capacity”?
How is it illegal to contest an election? And are “contest” and “question the accuracy” synonymous?
And how about it winding up in the Supreme Court because the Florida Supreme Court called it for Gore...illegally. A State Court can't rule in a Federal Election.
Since when is questioning a vote count something you can prosecute a person for?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since the sanctity of fair elections must be ensured, isn’t it the duty of the president to always question the vote count? In other words, shouldn’t the assumption be that ‘somebody is going to try to cheat’ and questioning the vote count is just part of the safeguards that need to be put in place for every election to ensure it doesn’t happen?
If a President tries to prevent an election from being stolen on his watch it’s simply not credie to say that’s not his role. He’s 100% immune
The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. Therefore, investigating the rampant vote fraud was Trump's duty.
Tru... but first as the man responsible to make sure election integrity is key.
Does it matter???
I don’t recall - questioning the vote count as being illegal.
If it were, Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary all oughta be in prison.
“Since when is questioning a vote count something you can prosecute a person for?“
- How does THIS question take EIGHT posts here on the Free Republic before it is asked????
Takes me back to my childhood. Mom would ask dad if he wanted ice cream or cookies. His answer - yes.
>>”The key question here is this: “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?”
I guess it all comes down to whether he genuinely had doubts about the vote count or believed everything was on the up and up. If it was the former, then of course he was questioning it in his capacity as President. In fact, not raising questions if he genuinely had doubts, would have been derelict. If doing so also helped his prospects as a candidate, then so be it.
Proving that Trump knew that the vote count was accurate raised questions anyway, would be hard to prove even if it were true, and when the theft is exposed by a 2nd Trump administration, even that door will close.
She didn’t say it is a criminal offense. She only said this would be an example of something that isn’t necessarily an “official act.” And I think she’s right about that. Although it will be a moot point in a few months.
women smh
Yes. He swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Absolute immunity.
I’m thinking all her neighbors/friends are named Karen and she wants to fit in.
Both.
In Georgia who thought massive cheating.
He asked to recount just a few and was sure the numbers were there
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.