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 ...
WTF does that mean? Come back in 50 years when the Marxists hold a SCOTUS majority? Seekie you find some stupid shit, like a dog licking its stool...
Correct.
But having kooks like Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell, Tom McInerny, Mary Fanning, etc suggest they are speaking on behalf of the Trump campaign regarding election fraud is not a strong move.
Re: 81 - grow up, potty mouth.
Several waves of itigation for lawyers to surf on have been providedby this SCOTUS. Lots of ambiguities in recent decisions .....
When Supreme Court Justices write their thoughts in response to being personally bribed, blackmailed or coerced, such writing is not part of their official duties.
I would argue that a president CAN’T be operating within his official capacity if his actions are outside his constitutional authority. While Biden certainly has authority to enforce immigration law, he has NO authority to refuse to enforce it. His actions in flinging the borders wide open and secretly flying illegals all over the country in the dead of night are clearly not only outside his authority as President, but completely contrary to his sworn duty. Thus, he’s clearly pursuing a personal political agenda in doing so, and should be 100% exposed to criminal and/or civil liability related to it.
Trump, on the other hand, was trying to ensure election integrity and doing so within the process delineated in Article II of the Constitution. There were certainly differing legal opinions on how the Article II process was to be applied, and whether highly questionable reported results from several states could be sent back to those states for another look, as those states themselves requested, but clearly what Trump was advocating was well within the boundaries of at least the spirit of those provisions, even if contested by some legal “experts.”
Trump was trying to protect the integrity of our election system, while Biden was trying to subvert the integrity of our immigration and border security system. So I would argue that Trump was operating well within his official capacity while Biden was way outside the bounds of his, and actually actively working against his sworn duties.
I would say the exact same thing as well. If you’re an elected official running for reelection, you want to make sure everyone who legitimately voted for you has their vote counted correctly in any illegitimate votes, not counted. To continue in your position on the platform you ran on, therefore, that would be official to me.
Sure, you could also use it for your campaign eases as well, so it is both, how do you exactly separate them, I don’t think you really easily can
I would add to my above comments by saying that I think conservatives should use this Supreme Court decision to absolutely demolish the left, particularly any future dem president. Dems always use their federal authority as nothing but a platform to launch all kinds of unconstitutional initiatives designed to further their Marxist political agenda. I suspect most if not all of these activities can be shown to be well outside their actual constitutional authority, and should therefore open them up to criminal and/or civil liability. Conservatives should use this distinction as a weapon to destroy those dems who have engaged in this seditious activity and to prevent and deter others from doing the same. We must focus unrelenting attention on this point, that any elected official (or even run of the mill bureaucrat) should have no protection from legal responsibility for their actions if those actions are outside their constitutional authority, period.
Any one can question anything. You do not go to jail for asking about what was clearly a stolen election done by the democrat party.
Unlike the other females on the bench...total disasters.
I wonder what deep state has on Amy
Also need to add as a citizen and voter.
If the plaintiffs suing on behalf of those censored had actually decided to deliver a lawsuit to the actual platforms that censored them, maybe the case would have had a better chance.
As it stood, the plaintiffs (as far as I'm aware) didn't even seek to enjoin the platforms themselves. How in the world are you going to establish harm if you're not even going to sue the principal actors who committed the deed?
Personal attacks remove all semblance of logic. Never mind the fact that red herrings are also a logical fallacy. Have a nice day.
They sold the notion that Russian banner ads stole the 2016 election to the point of it being in some AP US history textbooks.
Questioning elections for any reason has only been criminalized as part of the tyranny.
Reagan picked OConnet supposed strong conservative, nah turned out to be moderate to liberal and a disappointment. Barrett will be the same. Trump gets in get guys like Alito and Thomas. Can’t stand the Bushs, but their legacy is Thomas and Alito.
Doughty found that the govt coerced them into the censorship.
Why didn’t SCOTUS find the same thing?
(beyond that they obviously chose not to find it)
Was he questioning it because he was POTUS, or because he was a candidate? Did someone finally invent a mind-reading machine?
I want to add that when they when they pushed the Russian banner ads or threw Mackey in prison-
they did not cite one single specific voter that was harmed.
We’re obv by two sets of rules here.
They can do whatever they want while we risk an entire existence for merely expressing an opinion.
It’s OK for them to send 100 lawyers into AZ in 2016 to contest the election
we have endless video of Dems saying very similar things that Powell, Wood etc.. said-
they throw our people in jail for victimless crimes-
if our elected reps/associates etc... merely express an opinion that the election is fraught with potential fraud-
look out.
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.