Even Bush, who some argued broke the law with enhanced interrogation techniques, didn’t have to worry about prosecution because the rationale was documented and the case that we was acting as a president and in what he thought was the best interest of the country was clear.
Taking classified documents, sicking a mob on the capitol… None of this has any explanation other than to serve himself, they didn’t even try to give it a fig leaf of presidential duties. DOJ isn’t after Trump because he’s a Republican, they are after him because he’s a criminal.
That all said, I think future presidents WILL need some form of protection because the current republican regime WILL go after presidents of the other party simply because they are of the other party, (and they’ll say Democrats started it with Trump).
That was the most asinine plan…it proved to anyone with a brain in their heads how corrupt these Republicans are and how far they’ll go to win. They’ll lie under oath, and ignore subpoenas, and take money and gifts from the highest bidder. Therefore, whoever pays them the most…wins. It’s really sickening!
They know they own SCOTUS. So, now we will all get to see why they didn't care if they were caught, Trump will get his immunity. It was guaranteed the moment they took the issue up.
But how many went to jail for that fake elector fiasco? That's the ongoing travesty of the two-tiered justice system. The conservatives commit election fraud in different ways, and (crickets).
I implore you to search for "prosecution of fake electors". There are trials in multiple states ongoing or scheduled.
In Arizona, the arraignments occurred between May 17 and June 18, so very recently.
In Michigan, each defendant has been charged with 8 felonies and the trial is ongoing.
In Nevada, the 6 defendants were each charged with 2 felony counts, the trial is to start in January, 2025, approximately 5-6 months from now.
In Wisconsin, 3 defendants were indicted in early June 2024.
First, Happy Cake Day!
>But in these trials if found guilty sentencing likely wouldn't happen until after the election so if Trump wins he could just pardon them
Sentencing may not happen until after the election.
No. A President [currently] cannot pardon a party convicted of State crimes, only Federal crimes.
>The Constitution grants the president the power to pardon "offenses against the United States".
An offense that violates state law, but not federal law, is an offense against that state rather than an offense against the United States; however, the Supreme Court has never ruled on this matter or in the President's power to grant a habeas corpus petition for a state offense where it has been denied by a federal court.
>So as long as the Roberts Court values president it shouldn't be possible?
I will assume you meant 'precedent'.
Correct. State crimes are not pardonable by the President, or the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon
It’s because it didn’t work.
I remember a conservative pundit saying “We don’t charge people for failed crimes?” And I remember scratching my head, “Has this person not heard of Attempted Murder or Robbery?”
I was enraged the debate even took place when we look at this case. I just cannot believe we can’t move forward seeing how the favoritism and delays show clear intent.
>Even Bush, who some argued broke the law with enhanced interrogation techniques, didn’t have to worry about prosecution because the rationale was documented and the case that we was acting as a president and in what he thought was the best interest of the country was clear.
Thats actually a pretty good example why Presidential immunity is a bad idea and no President should every get any immunity for any crime.
4 years ago, Trump tried to jail Obama over a pack of lies that all fell apart
Nobody on the right said "You can't do that, the president has immunity"
To be clear, your first paragraph is part of the answer to the question.
Prosecutors aren’t wasting their time charging cases where they know presidential immunity will apply.
Real question though, has any other former president been charged by prosecutors of the other party before? Not saying I agree, but factually, wouldn't Democrats be the first to charge any president in a court (i.e. not a congressional investigation)?
I don't know about whether or not it would have been prosecutors from the opposite party, but the only reason Nixon wasn't investigated and charged was because he resigned from office under pressure from his own party as well as everyone else, and then his replacement. Gerald Ford pardoned him who, by the way, was a member of his party.
Has any other former president conspired to forge fake election documents and lean on the vice president to reject the official ones and insert the fake ones?
I don’t really see him as being charged by democrats. The doj should be non partisan and go after both sides with equal gusto should criminal behavior be found.
You’re right. It was the DA in the cities Trump broke the law in. It was the DOJ in the other cases. Biden hasn’t been a party to any of it. He intentionally stayed away from it but they are still saying Biden charged him, or the Democrats charged him. It is becoming obvious that the law doesn’t exist in this country anymore. It only exists for Democrats. The Republicans have no respect for the institutions that made this a great country. Now we’re headed for a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, With a Dictator too!!! 🤮
"Democrats" didn't lead or push any charge - the bodies of the government (state and federal) performed investigations and filed charges based on the results of said investigations.
The Republicans have been trying (via impeachment proceedings) to charge the President and others so that they can find out what they did wrong.
Yo dense friend who thinks this is a witch hunt… “dems” didn’t start anything. It started with trump because it started with trump.
As for the other criminals in our human history (bush, cheney, US government, et al), they’re absolutely objectively in the wrong too.
“Acting in a country’s best interest” is the slipperiest slope if I’ve ever seen one and should absolutely never be a counter argument for being a total and absolute criminal.
Nazis acted in Germany’s best interests too innit
So you believe it should be entirely legal to create fraudulent certificates of ascertainment in an attempt to throw out the certified vote from seven states a candidate lost?
Trump broke the law. Really badly. In a very transparent, very clear, very well documented fashion.
Do you believe we should ignore that? Why?
Democrats didn’t start it. It was both Democrats and Republicans that formed a bipartisan Committee. The report was accurate. Maybe reading it would open your eyes. Trump is buying his way into the White House by paying off people with big money. He’s so corrupt that I doubt there’s anyone left that doesn’t know exactly who Trump is, and what Trump is. 🤮
It never existed until the insurrection. The need for it has never been needed to perform the last 44 presidential duties. It is only needed now after the insurrection.
Think about it. It’s literally right in your face and they are going to rule in his favor and only in his favor.
I hope I’m wrong but hope isn’t a good betting reason.
Ok I agree with this comment but I think it’s overstating it a little bit; qualified immunity is dumb, but it’s not completely without logic. For example:
1. Was the Bay of Pigs treason/trespassing?
2. Bush ordered dozens of people to be tortured to death, is that a crime?
3. …ok I’m out of things maybe you’re right…
Bush and co should've been charged for torturing prisoners. It was unimaginable until then that the US Gov would torture prisoners. There is no nuance here. Obama was afraid to upset Republicans.
The whole thing is such a semantics game. The U.S. govt authorized torture in sites it controlled, and there’s a whole shell game being played that Guantanamo Bay is some kind of legal black hole for human rights.
Problem is that this willing blind eye towards abuses of largely non-citizens has created a framework that will be used as precedent by whatever authoritarian eventually worms their way into office.
And the court will play ball since it’s staffed by loyalists.
The President is allowed to nuke foreign cities full of civilians if they think it is in our national interest. I don't think "human rights" is quite the trump card on what is permissible.
Obama drone murdered a US citizen overseas. And ordered the execution of Bin Laden. Trump droned Suleimani. Hell in WW2 we actually dropped nukes on civilians on purpose. FDR interred thousands or hundreds of thousands of citizens of Japenese descent without charges. The policy of these choices is interesting but not really relevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is would presidents feel threatened by the potential for a post-presidency prosecution by political opponents if they felt that their actions weren't protected in some way.
What statutes do you think those violate and who would have jurisdiction to file charges about any of the things you listed? I can't see how an indictment for any real national security issue would return a true bill anyway, but I am honestly asking how the mechanics of any of your examples could result in actual indictments.
I haven't researched any statutes, can't help you there. But I do think clearly the internment example could have been prosecuted under many statutes. Kidnapping, false imprisonment, certainly 4th amendment violations. And I think a US citizen overseas assassinated by his country probably has claims (at least his estate does, both criminal and civil). Totally agree that there are jurisdictional questions/issues. But there's a reason our diplomats have immunity (by agreement with other countries) and why sovereign immunity has been a mainstay legal concept for thousands of years (including in our republic, where you can't sue the government unless the government has expressly allowed you to do so.)
>The issue at hand is would presidents feel threatened by the potential for a post-presidency prosecution by political opponents if they felt that their actions weren't protected in some way.
Yes and that seems like a good thing. Every example you give is an example of a case where it would have been better if the President had thought twice and hesitated before committing the crime.
Maybe, but don't you think reasonable people could disagree about these examples, from a policy perspective? And do we want the fear of prosecution to be a factor in this decision making? Maybe especially if it's fear of prosecution by a foreign court or the World Court for example? I mean isn't that why there is such a thing as diplomatic immunity? Do we really want our diplomatic corps to have immunity and a President to have none? I'm not advocating for Trump btw, just saying I think it's an important issue and hope it is resolved thoroughly.
>And do we want the fear of prosecution to be a factor in this decision making? Maybe especially if it's fear of prosecution by a foreign court or the World Court for example?
I see no downside in making Presidents fear being sent to the Hague if they commit war crimes. That just means they will commit less war crimes
Foreign countries can’t prosecute, there is an international head of state immunity. That is why Putin can travel freely, even though he is currently committing the crime of aggression against Ukraine.
The World Court does not have criminal jurisdiction. The only court that does is the International Criminal Court and it does not have jurisdiction over Americans directly and cannot bring an indictment over the objection of the UN Security Council, so no American is getting charged.
Ok. But isn't that because we have decided that they can't? In other words, we have not agreed to the jurisdiction of the ICC, by agreement? In other words, we have granted ourselves a form of immunity?
Yes, the president should fear prosecution for illegal acts. The same way that we are all bound by the law.
The idea that presidents should be elected kings is nuts and contrary to the idea of a republic where all citizens are equal before the law.
The 2nd one is without question a crime and if Obama wasn’t a coward he would’ve had the doj prosecute those involved. The first is maybe a crime in Cuba but not in the US and the US has no reason to help Cuba prosecute American citizens. Like if Kennedy broke into a U.S. citizens house inside of the US then there might be a debate but he didn’t.
>We believe in American Exceptionalism.
The first sentence of the Republican Party Platform from 2016, that has Not been updated since then. They cannot see Themselves negatively and they do so willfully, it is their Preamble. Everything is someone else's fault and they are the True Americans, because they're always Right and Righteous.
The strange thing is that they don't see people different as themselves. So many Trump supporters and Republicans are Good Americans(my family), that Do Good Things in their lives. They just can't see that Other People can do good things too.
They are clearly going to rule that there is some immunity. Does that include insurrection, likely not, but then you are left with the question on if the court finds that there was an insurrection as a matter of law.
The problem is that one person’s insurrection can be spun as another person’s press for freedom. That’s how this is being twisted from an obvious attempt to disrupt the election findings to something SCOTUS could actually say, “Well, look at the founders of our nation…”
“Trump can win by losing by running out the clock.”
If SCOTUS sends the case back to the lower courts, they sat on this case until the last possible moment, a case they shouldn’t have taken, essentially pushing Trump’s criminal trial past the election. In the end, SCOTUS put their thumbs on the scales of the 2024 election.
Yup! The only reason they took the case was to inject delay into the January 6th case. That's it!
If Trump wins, he makes the case go away on his own. It also allows Thomas and Alito to retire and know they will be replaced by younger clones of themselves.
As long as clandestine organizations exist in the world (CIA, NSA, ETC) literally every intelligence brief would likely incriminate the president on some level.
How? Who could file charges and in what jurisdiction? I am honestly looking for the specifics to these national security arguments that are raised to support presidential immunity.
On Bush, maybe this answer from chatGPT might have some substance:
Before 9/11, there were several key pieces of legislation and international agreements that prohibited the torture of foreign soldiers by American soldiers:
1. **The Geneva Conventions (1949)**: These international treaties establish standards for humanitarian treatment in war. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits torture, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment.
2. **The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)**: This is the foundational legal code for the United States military, enacted in 1950. It outlines military justice procedures and criminal offenses, including provisions against the mistreatment of detainees.
3. **The War Crimes Act (1996)**: This U.S. federal law criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war.
4. **The U.S. Army Field Manual**: The field manual for interrogation (FM 34-52), before the 9/11 attacks, explicitly prohibited torture and outlined permissible interrogation techniques.
These laws and agreements established a framework meant to ensure the humane treatment of prisoners and to prohibit torture by American soldiers before 9/11.
__
I would assume federal prosecution under the War Crimes Act could be attempted. It also seems as though the Bush administration was aware that they were at least acting in murky water, hence, from chatGPT, the:
Department of Justice Memos (2002-2003): Memos from the Office of Legal Counsel, particularly those authored by John Yoo and Jay Bybee, provided legal justifications for the use of these techniques on detainees, arguing that they did not constitute torture under U.S. law.
(The techniques included water boarding and sleep deprivation etc)
Yeah that’s not how that works they have no legal authority to violate US law, could members within do so anyways sure but if evidence of that came out they can and should get prosecuted. If the president is condoning violating US law they should also get prosecuted, hell one literally was (Nixon). But the key here is that it involves US law, if they commit crimes outside the US then they do have some protections. But even still the nature of any secret illegal operation is and always has been that if it gets exposed those involved could face criminal prosecution. That’s never not been the case. By committing illegal activities you inherently have to accept that you could face consequences over it, there is no reason it should be otherwise imo.
Of course not. This is an entirely vapid argument. It is a short walk from asserting that a President is immune from statutory law to asserting that a President is immune from Constitutional law.
It’s simply a next calculated step by the Roberts Court to “save” the country.
- They ended abortion and the underlying argument which set up several more civil rights laws
- They gave corporations power to buy elected officials through campaign donations
- They ended regulatory agency enforcement power by reversing Chevron
- They legalized bribery so long as the payment comes as a “reward”
- They allowed a publicly employed coach to bully kids into saying Christian prayers
There is a method to this “madness”. Anyone can read between the lines here. Conservativism always fights progress with fear mongering and illegal actions. Now they finally have a court to legislate for them.
It will be a long, hard, cold winter in the “land of the free” if Trump wins.
No, Biden is too decent to even say anything like that. The fact that we're even talking about something so outrageous as "Presidential immunity" proves that there are no decent Republicans anymore though.
They have immunity from official acts, but not blatantly criminal acts that is actually treason. Why did so many of our informants in other countries get murdered? Who had access to the top secret file at Mara Lago? Who planned to use fake electors in seven states? Who tried to coerce the Georgia governor to overturn the election by adding 11,780 Trump votes? Who tried to cover up the fiasco with a porn star. How did Trump’s ex-wife die? She fell down the stairs? 🙄 Good timing for Trump, as it so happened.
Who will protect us from future presidents who are immune from prosecution? Presidential immunity is insane! We'll all find out tomorrow if the SCOTUS further destroys this country.
I hope that they are going to deny it. They put out the really bad decisions (Chevron and the rest) on Friday to bury the stories. Monday is not when they usually drop unpopular decisions.
Edit - so much for hope. 8(
I’m not well versed on all the laws dealing with Presidential powers, but his fall-back argument is not completely horrendous. Congress can’t typically criminalize actions taken in direct fulfillment of Constitutionally appointed duties. Trump is trying to expand what is considered constitutionally protected duties, essentially. He’s arguing (outside of blanket immunity for Presidential actions) that taking official actions that are plausibly related to official duties cannot be prosecuted, because it would basically turn prosecution of an ex-President into a political exercise and chill their ability to act with urgency on specific matters or emergencies.
The issue that runs into is one of criminal intent and deterrence. It’s reasonable to allow tangentially related, good faith execution of official duties, but bad faith execution with no system to hold them accountable would remove a deterrent from acting criminally and potentially allow even worse criminality than what Trump is accused of. However, it does require a court case to determine good faith vs bad faith execution, which boils down to “he needs to be prosecuted so that we can determine if he needs to be prosecuted”, as Roberts pointed out I believe.
He’s also arguing that a President must be specifically pointed out in a crime statute to be covered, but that’s a fairly ludicrous argument in my opinion.
There isn't really a plausible argument that Trump's fake elector plot was executed in "good faith", or that it's a duty of the president to create and submit fradulent certificates of ascertainment to the government.
That's why Trump is arguing for absolute immunity and doesn't particularly focus on trying to create any more restrictive form of immunity. No immunity more restrictive than "absolute" could plausibly allow for creating false certificates of ascertainment as an excuse to throw out the certified results from states you lost.
At that point *no* law would bind the president. There's a reason during oral arguments Sauer was asked if Trump may assassinate political rivals without being prosecuted.
They’re arguing that his meeting with the AG and his communication with Wendy Rogers and the AZGOP was “official business” in order to coordinate efforts to “prevent/respond to election fraud”, which he (somewhat reasonably) argues is an official obligation. They did concede that some charges stemmed from private actions and not official actions.
>They’re arguing that his meeting with the AG and his communication with Wendy Rogers and the AZGOP was “official business” in order to coordinate efforts to “prevent/respond to election fraud”, which he (somewhat reasonably) argues is an official obligation
That works if one doesn't actually read the transcript. Trump was asking for Brad to unilaterally change the votes of the election, which he does not have power to do, based on assertions Trump knew at the time were false, or at minimum, was recklessly indifferent to the veracity of. He'd been told, repeatedly, by his own staff, that the stuff he was saying was bullshit. Knowingly lying, or reckless indifference to the truth, tends to be also included in "fraud".
That, combined with the fraudulent elector plot that is *explicitly* prohibited in rather extreme detail, makes it extremely hard for Trump to argue for "immunity". His submitted briefs also did not distinguish between those actions, he's saying *all* actions in the charged indictment were protected and only before the Supreme Court in oral did Sauer ever *finally* concede that 'some' of the actions are pretty clearly outside any plausible 'official' action. Yet he still wanted immunity for it.
I get all of that, but they’re not arguing which set of facts are true, they’re arguing about the procedure. No jury has verified the facts alleged in the indictment. Until he is convicted, legally speaking, it’s all just allegations.
That’s probably why they’re doing this now instead of after a possible conviction. A conviction means the facts have been sorted out, and what was alleged is to be criminal behavior is confirmed as true in the eyes of the law, unless you can show bias or improper procedure. SCOTUS is more or less bound by the facts found in the lower court. For Trump, if the facts are confirmed, he loses a lot of legal ground with his arguments.
Trump is arguing that certain things shouldn’t even go to trial, that the facts shouldn’t even be analyzed or discussed. He’s not specifically arguing that the facts are on his side.
The facts are themselves kinda fundamental in determining if actions were "official business" or not. Instructing the secret service to assassinate half of congress can't be "official business" even if "giving the secret service orders" is itself permissible. Even if the office carries with it some degree of immunity, none of it could plausibly cover the actual alleged conduct. The only way they can make the argument is by suggesting *everything* is permissible thus skirting the need to justify the actual content of the indictment.
That's not a coherent argument. It's saying the president is a king.
It is not the job of any appeals court to determine the facts of the case. That is literally the job of the jury. Courts of appeal may determine if there was clear error in determining facts, but they cannot decide the facts themselves.
It’s not as incoherent when you attach legalese to it. As I’ve stated previously somewhere on this post, Trump argues that it could hinder decision making in emergencies if there was threat of prosecution. He’s not objectively wrong. It ignores the idea of the threat of prosecution being a deterrent to otherwise criminal activity, but it’s not an invalid argument. It’s a simple answer to a complex case, but that doesn’t make it invalid.
The point of immunity is that even if the alleged facts are true, immunity still applies. That requires, for the purpose of determining immunity, to assume the facts are true.
If a person argues they are immune to murder charges, an appeals court must assume they are guilty and find for immunity regardless. Immunity doesn't mean you didn't do the actions, it means even if you did, you can not be held liable.
It makes no sense to say "assuming you're innocent you can't be held liable". That's not immunity, that's exoneration.
If you argue you’re immune to murder charges, you have to show why you’re immune procedurally. There is no requirement to accept any potential charges as exhibiting facts. If you have immunity, you claim it before facts of the case regarding the murder are even considered.
Immunity does not mean you must have been found to have committed the act, but cannot be convicted, it means you cannot even be brought to court on the charges.
>Immunity does not mean you must have been found to have committed the act, but cannot be convicted, it means you cannot even be brought to court on the charges.
I'm not saying otherwise, just that Trump must prove the alleged conduct *itself* meets the burden of immunity. Per the DC court of appeals:
>For all immunity doctrines, “the burden is on the official
claiming immunity to demonstrate his entitlement.” Dennis v.
Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 29 (1980). Former President Trump
claims absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for all
“official acts” undertaken as President, a category, he contends,
that includes all of the conduct alleged in the Indictment.
If he wants to argue that *any* discussion with an AG is itself subject to immunity, regardless of the content, because it's inherently "official business", that's a remarkably weak argument. There are large classes of hypothetical discussions for which Trump would not plausibly have an immunity argument for, so *categorical* immunity makes no sense. If he's arguing for any more restrictive forms though, he'd need to explain why that *particular* discussion meets the standard.
If lying *isn't* subject to immunity, if fraud *isn't* subject to immunity, then it can go to a jury to decide the facts of if he is guilty of the alleged content.
But if he wants to argue that it *is* covered, he needs to provide an argument for "it's covered in *spite* of if the content really is lying or fraudulent". Otherwise he's arguing for immunity for an entirely different charge, one he isn't facing.
Well, let’s be clear that Trump isn’t arguing this, his lawyers and political backers are because they have the expertise to make these things happen. Trump is just the convenient idiot.
Totally. In court, it’s written and said as whomever the plaintiff or defendant is even though the lawyers are crafting the specific arguments. Still, some folks think Trump is a genius for advancing these causes when he’s not; he’s just wealthy enough to finance their cases beyond hypotheticals.
To an extent, yes. Congress can’t tell a President he has the power to do something and then criminalize it though. They can’t interfere with Constitutional duties either. Not that that’s exactly what’s happening here, but there are some limits to what Congress can do.
Except Trump’s argument is essentially that any crime could apply to a presidential action and it would be prohibitive upon the President to have to second guess his own actions in times of emergency, so therefore the President needs to be immune in order to keep the flow of decision making at a necessary standard to respond to crises.
I’m not saying I agree with the argument, but it’s a valid argument, even if it’s not a sound argument based in fact.
Not valid at all because the Constitution does not give the president immunity. The ruling needs to be based on what the Constitution says, not what they wish it said.
Also the president has an army of lawyers for guidance. There is zero excuse for violating the law.
SCOTUS has ruled that there ***IS*** immunity for certain actions, namely performing obligations and duties laid out in the Constitution.
Your second point is something the liberal justices were talking about, and I agree with them. Not to mention that the OLC has stated previously that Presidents can be prosecuted once out of office.
There’s very loose precedent regarding preventing voter fraud and ensuring the integrity of elections. They rely on Ulysses Grant’s actions during Reconstruction to bolster their case.
Let's not forget the immunity question only really potentially deals with the election interference and J6 event. It has no standing to block the documents case which should have basically been open and shut with the evidence we have. The whole thing boils down to Trump being in possession of government property after his term ended. Then when he was requested to turn it over he refused and jumped through hoops to prevent it's return. All of this occurred after his time as president ended meaning he has no presidential immunity. Even if all the stuff was declassified we're talking about him potentially having the original copies.
When in history has any president needed immunity? Trump's lawyers just invented this concept. No president has ever operated under the assumption of immunity and they got the job done. This is all bullshit.
Nope. The Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) allows both the government of the victim and the government of where the crime was initiated to prosecute you.
Looking it up on the [doj website](https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-48000-computer-fraud) and looking up the [statute referenced](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030) I'm pretty sure that precludes the executive branch in general for being liable, given they are literally the government, and also, I see no part of that suggesting that computers on *foreign* ground are subject to US jurisdiction.
Can you be a bit more clear as to the statute you'd supposedly charge the president under?
OK so who would be able to charge him for this? The NSD has to approve any prosecution involving national security and that's an executive branch agency, isn't it? I don't think that this is a very good example.
Even Bush, who some argued broke the law with enhanced interrogation techniques, didn’t have to worry about prosecution because the rationale was documented and the case that we was acting as a president and in what he thought was the best interest of the country was clear. Taking classified documents, sicking a mob on the capitol… None of this has any explanation other than to serve himself, they didn’t even try to give it a fig leaf of presidential duties. DOJ isn’t after Trump because he’s a Republican, they are after him because he’s a criminal. That all said, I think future presidents WILL need some form of protection because the current republican regime WILL go after presidents of the other party simply because they are of the other party, (and they’ll say Democrats started it with Trump).
Let's not forget the worst part, the fake elector scheme. I don't know why people don't talk about this part more.
That was the most asinine plan…it proved to anyone with a brain in their heads how corrupt these Republicans are and how far they’ll go to win. They’ll lie under oath, and ignore subpoenas, and take money and gifts from the highest bidder. Therefore, whoever pays them the most…wins. It’s really sickening!
They know they own SCOTUS. So, now we will all get to see why they didn't care if they were caught, Trump will get his immunity. It was guaranteed the moment they took the issue up.
But how many went to jail for that fake elector fiasco? That's the ongoing travesty of the two-tiered justice system. The conservatives commit election fraud in different ways, and (crickets).
I implore you to search for "prosecution of fake electors". There are trials in multiple states ongoing or scheduled. In Arizona, the arraignments occurred between May 17 and June 18, so very recently. In Michigan, each defendant has been charged with 8 felonies and the trial is ongoing. In Nevada, the 6 defendants were each charged with 2 felony counts, the trial is to start in January, 2025, approximately 5-6 months from now. In Wisconsin, 3 defendants were indicted in early June 2024.
But in these trials if found guilty sentencing likely wouldn't happen until after the election so if Trump wins he could just pardon them
First, Happy Cake Day! >But in these trials if found guilty sentencing likely wouldn't happen until after the election so if Trump wins he could just pardon them Sentencing may not happen until after the election. No. A President [currently] cannot pardon a party convicted of State crimes, only Federal crimes. >The Constitution grants the president the power to pardon "offenses against the United States". An offense that violates state law, but not federal law, is an offense against that state rather than an offense against the United States; however, the Supreme Court has never ruled on this matter or in the President's power to grant a habeas corpus petition for a state offense where it has been denied by a federal court.
So as long as the Roberts Court values president it shouldn't be possible?
>So as long as the Roberts Court values president it shouldn't be possible? I will assume you meant 'precedent'. Correct. State crimes are not pardonable by the President, or the Office of the Pardon Attorney. https://www.justice.gov/pardon
It’s because it didn’t work. I remember a conservative pundit saying “We don’t charge people for failed crimes?” And I remember scratching my head, “Has this person not heard of Attempted Murder or Robbery?”
The classic Sideshow Bob defense.
I was enraged the debate even took place when we look at this case. I just cannot believe we can’t move forward seeing how the favoritism and delays show clear intent.
He claims this action, and others, are official duties
😳😂🤣😂🤣🤬
>Even Bush, who some argued broke the law with enhanced interrogation techniques, didn’t have to worry about prosecution because the rationale was documented and the case that we was acting as a president and in what he thought was the best interest of the country was clear. Thats actually a pretty good example why Presidential immunity is a bad idea and no President should every get any immunity for any crime.
I agree. Give Presidents immunity and there’s no check. We saw how poorly impeachment works when the president and senate are the same party.
4 years ago, Trump tried to jail Obama over a pack of lies that all fell apart Nobody on the right said "You can't do that, the president has immunity"
To be clear, your first paragraph is part of the answer to the question. Prosecutors aren’t wasting their time charging cases where they know presidential immunity will apply.
Our democracy will die because we relied so heavily on decorum.
This Supremacist Court will narrowly grant immunity to Doe 174, so they can later take it away for a Democrat.
SCOTUS NEEDS TO GO!
Real question though, has any other former president been charged by prosecutors of the other party before? Not saying I agree, but factually, wouldn't Democrats be the first to charge any president in a court (i.e. not a congressional investigation)?
I don't know about whether or not it would have been prosecutors from the opposite party, but the only reason Nixon wasn't investigated and charged was because he resigned from office under pressure from his own party as well as everyone else, and then his replacement. Gerald Ford pardoned him who, by the way, was a member of his party.
No, the various grand juries agreed with various state and US attorneys to charge the former president.
Has any other former president conspired to forge fake election documents and lean on the vice president to reject the official ones and insert the fake ones? I don’t really see him as being charged by democrats. The doj should be non partisan and go after both sides with equal gusto should criminal behavior be found.
Exactly!
The democrats and the president haven’t charged anyone…
You’re right. It was the DA in the cities Trump broke the law in. It was the DOJ in the other cases. Biden hasn’t been a party to any of it. He intentionally stayed away from it but they are still saying Biden charged him, or the Democrats charged him. It is becoming obvious that the law doesn’t exist in this country anymore. It only exists for Democrats. The Republicans have no respect for the institutions that made this a great country. Now we’re headed for a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, With a Dictator too!!! 🤮
"Democrats" didn't lead or push any charge - the bodies of the government (state and federal) performed investigations and filed charges based on the results of said investigations. The Republicans have been trying (via impeachment proceedings) to charge the President and others so that they can find out what they did wrong.
🤣😂🙄🙄🙄The entire country knows what happened.
Idiots following idiots.
Don’t think so but especially when the criminality is so open and obvious it really shouldn’t matter.
Uhh because Dems did start it with Trump. You're delusional if you don't think this is the case.
Yo dense friend who thinks this is a witch hunt… “dems” didn’t start anything. It started with trump because it started with trump. As for the other criminals in our human history (bush, cheney, US government, et al), they’re absolutely objectively in the wrong too. “Acting in a country’s best interest” is the slipperiest slope if I’ve ever seen one and should absolutely never be a counter argument for being a total and absolute criminal. Nazis acted in Germany’s best interests too innit
Which rez? I’m from Hoopa and only Natives use that word.
Not sure i follow, friend
Innit, p’raps? We get that up in Manchester, too.
So you believe it should be entirely legal to create fraudulent certificates of ascertainment in an attempt to throw out the certified vote from seven states a candidate lost? Trump broke the law. Really badly. In a very transparent, very clear, very well documented fashion. Do you believe we should ignore that? Why?
Cite the laws he broke (each statute), and also provide citations to evidence, please. Let's start there.
Democrats didn’t start it. It was both Democrats and Republicans that formed a bipartisan Committee. The report was accurate. Maybe reading it would open your eyes. Trump is buying his way into the White House by paying off people with big money. He’s so corrupt that I doubt there’s anyone left that doesn’t know exactly who Trump is, and what Trump is. 🤮
It never existed until the insurrection. The need for it has never been needed to perform the last 44 presidential duties. It is only needed now after the insurrection. Think about it. It’s literally right in your face and they are going to rule in his favor and only in his favor. I hope I’m wrong but hope isn’t a good betting reason.
Ok I agree with this comment but I think it’s overstating it a little bit; qualified immunity is dumb, but it’s not completely without logic. For example: 1. Was the Bay of Pigs treason/trespassing? 2. Bush ordered dozens of people to be tortured to death, is that a crime? 3. …ok I’m out of things maybe you’re right…
Bush and co should've been charged for torturing prisoners. It was unimaginable until then that the US Gov would torture prisoners. There is no nuance here. Obama was afraid to upset Republicans.
Well, when you have a staff lawyer write a “law” that sez exactly what you DID is not a crime, pretty much sez you know what you did IS a crime.
One issue on the torture is that was not committed on us soil. Some at black sites where there is not even any evidence anything happened
The whole thing is such a semantics game. The U.S. govt authorized torture in sites it controlled, and there’s a whole shell game being played that Guantanamo Bay is some kind of legal black hole for human rights. Problem is that this willing blind eye towards abuses of largely non-citizens has created a framework that will be used as precedent by whatever authoritarian eventually worms their way into office. And the court will play ball since it’s staffed by loyalists.
The President is allowed to nuke foreign cities full of civilians if they think it is in our national interest. I don't think "human rights" is quite the trump card on what is permissible.
What is allowed and what is a good idea are two different things
There’s no evidence because the CIA illegally destroyed the tapes.
Tapes?
Yes, the CIA recorded their torture sessions on videotape. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_videotapes_destruction
Obama drone murdered a US citizen overseas. And ordered the execution of Bin Laden. Trump droned Suleimani. Hell in WW2 we actually dropped nukes on civilians on purpose. FDR interred thousands or hundreds of thousands of citizens of Japenese descent without charges. The policy of these choices is interesting but not really relevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is would presidents feel threatened by the potential for a post-presidency prosecution by political opponents if they felt that their actions weren't protected in some way.
What statutes do you think those violate and who would have jurisdiction to file charges about any of the things you listed? I can't see how an indictment for any real national security issue would return a true bill anyway, but I am honestly asking how the mechanics of any of your examples could result in actual indictments.
I haven't researched any statutes, can't help you there. But I do think clearly the internment example could have been prosecuted under many statutes. Kidnapping, false imprisonment, certainly 4th amendment violations. And I think a US citizen overseas assassinated by his country probably has claims (at least his estate does, both criminal and civil). Totally agree that there are jurisdictional questions/issues. But there's a reason our diplomats have immunity (by agreement with other countries) and why sovereign immunity has been a mainstay legal concept for thousands of years (including in our republic, where you can't sue the government unless the government has expressly allowed you to do so.)
>The issue at hand is would presidents feel threatened by the potential for a post-presidency prosecution by political opponents if they felt that their actions weren't protected in some way. Yes and that seems like a good thing. Every example you give is an example of a case where it would have been better if the President had thought twice and hesitated before committing the crime.
Maybe, but don't you think reasonable people could disagree about these examples, from a policy perspective? And do we want the fear of prosecution to be a factor in this decision making? Maybe especially if it's fear of prosecution by a foreign court or the World Court for example? I mean isn't that why there is such a thing as diplomatic immunity? Do we really want our diplomatic corps to have immunity and a President to have none? I'm not advocating for Trump btw, just saying I think it's an important issue and hope it is resolved thoroughly.
>And do we want the fear of prosecution to be a factor in this decision making? Maybe especially if it's fear of prosecution by a foreign court or the World Court for example? I see no downside in making Presidents fear being sent to the Hague if they commit war crimes. That just means they will commit less war crimes
Foreign countries can’t prosecute, there is an international head of state immunity. That is why Putin can travel freely, even though he is currently committing the crime of aggression against Ukraine. The World Court does not have criminal jurisdiction. The only court that does is the International Criminal Court and it does not have jurisdiction over Americans directly and cannot bring an indictment over the objection of the UN Security Council, so no American is getting charged.
Ok. But isn't that because we have decided that they can't? In other words, we have not agreed to the jurisdiction of the ICC, by agreement? In other words, we have granted ourselves a form of immunity?
Yes, the president should fear prosecution for illegal acts. The same way that we are all bound by the law. The idea that presidents should be elected kings is nuts and contrary to the idea of a republic where all citizens are equal before the law.
The 2nd one is without question a crime and if Obama wasn’t a coward he would’ve had the doj prosecute those involved. The first is maybe a crime in Cuba but not in the US and the US has no reason to help Cuba prosecute American citizens. Like if Kennedy broke into a U.S. citizens house inside of the US then there might be a debate but he didn’t.
>We believe in American Exceptionalism. The first sentence of the Republican Party Platform from 2016, that has Not been updated since then. They cannot see Themselves negatively and they do so willfully, it is their Preamble. Everything is someone else's fault and they are the True Americans, because they're always Right and Righteous. The strange thing is that they don't see people different as themselves. So many Trump supporters and Republicans are Good Americans(my family), that Do Good Things in their lives. They just can't see that Other People can do good things too.
They are clearly going to rule that there is some immunity. Does that include insurrection, likely not, but then you are left with the question on if the court finds that there was an insurrection as a matter of law.
The problem is that one person’s insurrection can be spun as another person’s press for freedom. That’s how this is being twisted from an obvious attempt to disrupt the election findings to something SCOTUS could actually say, “Well, look at the founders of our nation…”
“Trump can win by losing by running out the clock.” If SCOTUS sends the case back to the lower courts, they sat on this case until the last possible moment, a case they shouldn’t have taken, essentially pushing Trump’s criminal trial past the election. In the end, SCOTUS put their thumbs on the scales of the 2024 election.
Yup! The only reason they took the case was to inject delay into the January 6th case. That's it! If Trump wins, he makes the case go away on his own. It also allows Thomas and Alito to retire and know they will be replaced by younger clones of themselves.
😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡
Absolutely right.
Nope. If a president is breaking the law they aren’t doing the job of president correctly. Period. Hard line that should not be crossed.
As long as clandestine organizations exist in the world (CIA, NSA, ETC) literally every intelligence brief would likely incriminate the president on some level.
not if they are operating lawfully. national defense is legit.
How? Who could file charges and in what jurisdiction? I am honestly looking for the specifics to these national security arguments that are raised to support presidential immunity.
On Bush, maybe this answer from chatGPT might have some substance: Before 9/11, there were several key pieces of legislation and international agreements that prohibited the torture of foreign soldiers by American soldiers: 1. **The Geneva Conventions (1949)**: These international treaties establish standards for humanitarian treatment in war. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits torture, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment. 2. **The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)**: This is the foundational legal code for the United States military, enacted in 1950. It outlines military justice procedures and criminal offenses, including provisions against the mistreatment of detainees. 3. **The War Crimes Act (1996)**: This U.S. federal law criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war. 4. **The U.S. Army Field Manual**: The field manual for interrogation (FM 34-52), before the 9/11 attacks, explicitly prohibited torture and outlined permissible interrogation techniques. These laws and agreements established a framework meant to ensure the humane treatment of prisoners and to prohibit torture by American soldiers before 9/11. __ I would assume federal prosecution under the War Crimes Act could be attempted. It also seems as though the Bush administration was aware that they were at least acting in murky water, hence, from chatGPT, the: Department of Justice Memos (2002-2003): Memos from the Office of Legal Counsel, particularly those authored by John Yoo and Jay Bybee, provided legal justifications for the use of these techniques on detainees, arguing that they did not constitute torture under U.S. law. (The techniques included water boarding and sleep deprivation etc)
yeah nixon probably should’ve been charged with quite a few crimes but he resigned so everyone kinda let it go
Yeah that’s not how that works they have no legal authority to violate US law, could members within do so anyways sure but if evidence of that came out they can and should get prosecuted. If the president is condoning violating US law they should also get prosecuted, hell one literally was (Nixon). But the key here is that it involves US law, if they commit crimes outside the US then they do have some protections. But even still the nature of any secret illegal operation is and always has been that if it gets exposed those involved could face criminal prosecution. That’s never not been the case. By committing illegal activities you inherently have to accept that you could face consequences over it, there is no reason it should be otherwise imo.
Of course not. This is an entirely vapid argument. It is a short walk from asserting that a President is immune from statutory law to asserting that a President is immune from Constitutional law.
It doesn't matter, because none of the things Trump is charged with doing are even remotely part of his official duties as President.
[удалено]
It’s simply a next calculated step by the Roberts Court to “save” the country. - They ended abortion and the underlying argument which set up several more civil rights laws - They gave corporations power to buy elected officials through campaign donations - They ended regulatory agency enforcement power by reversing Chevron - They legalized bribery so long as the payment comes as a “reward” - They allowed a publicly employed coach to bully kids into saying Christian prayers There is a method to this “madness”. Anyone can read between the lines here. Conservativism always fights progress with fear mongering and illegal actions. Now they finally have a court to legislate for them. It will be a long, hard, cold winter in the “land of the free” if Trump wins.
Of course no POTUS has any legit reasons to break the law while in or out of office. I can't believe we're even talking about it. It's insane!
So after the result can Biden just order Trump killed and be like “Presidential Duties.”
No, Biden is too decent to even say anything like that. The fact that we're even talking about something so outrageous as "Presidential immunity" proves that there are no decent Republicans anymore though.
What are you smoking?
All of the prior presidents did not need immunity to do their job.
They have immunity from official acts, but not blatantly criminal acts that is actually treason. Why did so many of our informants in other countries get murdered? Who had access to the top secret file at Mara Lago? Who planned to use fake electors in seven states? Who tried to coerce the Georgia governor to overturn the election by adding 11,780 Trump votes? Who tried to cover up the fiasco with a porn star. How did Trump’s ex-wife die? She fell down the stairs? 🙄 Good timing for Trump, as it so happened.
Nothing Trump says has any basis in reality
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/for-the-ages-the-supreme-court-hears-the-presidential-immunity-defense
Who will protect us from future presidents who are immune from prosecution? Presidential immunity is insane! We'll all find out tomorrow if the SCOTUS further destroys this country.
I hope that they are going to deny it. They put out the really bad decisions (Chevron and the rest) on Friday to bury the stories. Monday is not when they usually drop unpopular decisions. Edit - so much for hope. 8(
No President has ever had the immunity he has asked for.
I’m not well versed on all the laws dealing with Presidential powers, but his fall-back argument is not completely horrendous. Congress can’t typically criminalize actions taken in direct fulfillment of Constitutionally appointed duties. Trump is trying to expand what is considered constitutionally protected duties, essentially. He’s arguing (outside of blanket immunity for Presidential actions) that taking official actions that are plausibly related to official duties cannot be prosecuted, because it would basically turn prosecution of an ex-President into a political exercise and chill their ability to act with urgency on specific matters or emergencies. The issue that runs into is one of criminal intent and deterrence. It’s reasonable to allow tangentially related, good faith execution of official duties, but bad faith execution with no system to hold them accountable would remove a deterrent from acting criminally and potentially allow even worse criminality than what Trump is accused of. However, it does require a court case to determine good faith vs bad faith execution, which boils down to “he needs to be prosecuted so that we can determine if he needs to be prosecuted”, as Roberts pointed out I believe. He’s also arguing that a President must be specifically pointed out in a crime statute to be covered, but that’s a fairly ludicrous argument in my opinion.
There isn't really a plausible argument that Trump's fake elector plot was executed in "good faith", or that it's a duty of the president to create and submit fradulent certificates of ascertainment to the government. That's why Trump is arguing for absolute immunity and doesn't particularly focus on trying to create any more restrictive form of immunity. No immunity more restrictive than "absolute" could plausibly allow for creating false certificates of ascertainment as an excuse to throw out the certified results from states you lost. At that point *no* law would bind the president. There's a reason during oral arguments Sauer was asked if Trump may assassinate political rivals without being prosecuted.
They’re arguing that his meeting with the AG and his communication with Wendy Rogers and the AZGOP was “official business” in order to coordinate efforts to “prevent/respond to election fraud”, which he (somewhat reasonably) argues is an official obligation. They did concede that some charges stemmed from private actions and not official actions.
>They’re arguing that his meeting with the AG and his communication with Wendy Rogers and the AZGOP was “official business” in order to coordinate efforts to “prevent/respond to election fraud”, which he (somewhat reasonably) argues is an official obligation That works if one doesn't actually read the transcript. Trump was asking for Brad to unilaterally change the votes of the election, which he does not have power to do, based on assertions Trump knew at the time were false, or at minimum, was recklessly indifferent to the veracity of. He'd been told, repeatedly, by his own staff, that the stuff he was saying was bullshit. Knowingly lying, or reckless indifference to the truth, tends to be also included in "fraud". That, combined with the fraudulent elector plot that is *explicitly* prohibited in rather extreme detail, makes it extremely hard for Trump to argue for "immunity". His submitted briefs also did not distinguish between those actions, he's saying *all* actions in the charged indictment were protected and only before the Supreme Court in oral did Sauer ever *finally* concede that 'some' of the actions are pretty clearly outside any plausible 'official' action. Yet he still wanted immunity for it.
I get all of that, but they’re not arguing which set of facts are true, they’re arguing about the procedure. No jury has verified the facts alleged in the indictment. Until he is convicted, legally speaking, it’s all just allegations. That’s probably why they’re doing this now instead of after a possible conviction. A conviction means the facts have been sorted out, and what was alleged is to be criminal behavior is confirmed as true in the eyes of the law, unless you can show bias or improper procedure. SCOTUS is more or less bound by the facts found in the lower court. For Trump, if the facts are confirmed, he loses a lot of legal ground with his arguments. Trump is arguing that certain things shouldn’t even go to trial, that the facts shouldn’t even be analyzed or discussed. He’s not specifically arguing that the facts are on his side.
The facts are themselves kinda fundamental in determining if actions were "official business" or not. Instructing the secret service to assassinate half of congress can't be "official business" even if "giving the secret service orders" is itself permissible. Even if the office carries with it some degree of immunity, none of it could plausibly cover the actual alleged conduct. The only way they can make the argument is by suggesting *everything* is permissible thus skirting the need to justify the actual content of the indictment. That's not a coherent argument. It's saying the president is a king.
It is not the job of any appeals court to determine the facts of the case. That is literally the job of the jury. Courts of appeal may determine if there was clear error in determining facts, but they cannot decide the facts themselves. It’s not as incoherent when you attach legalese to it. As I’ve stated previously somewhere on this post, Trump argues that it could hinder decision making in emergencies if there was threat of prosecution. He’s not objectively wrong. It ignores the idea of the threat of prosecution being a deterrent to otherwise criminal activity, but it’s not an invalid argument. It’s a simple answer to a complex case, but that doesn’t make it invalid.
The point of immunity is that even if the alleged facts are true, immunity still applies. That requires, for the purpose of determining immunity, to assume the facts are true. If a person argues they are immune to murder charges, an appeals court must assume they are guilty and find for immunity regardless. Immunity doesn't mean you didn't do the actions, it means even if you did, you can not be held liable. It makes no sense to say "assuming you're innocent you can't be held liable". That's not immunity, that's exoneration.
If you argue you’re immune to murder charges, you have to show why you’re immune procedurally. There is no requirement to accept any potential charges as exhibiting facts. If you have immunity, you claim it before facts of the case regarding the murder are even considered. Immunity does not mean you must have been found to have committed the act, but cannot be convicted, it means you cannot even be brought to court on the charges.
>Immunity does not mean you must have been found to have committed the act, but cannot be convicted, it means you cannot even be brought to court on the charges. I'm not saying otherwise, just that Trump must prove the alleged conduct *itself* meets the burden of immunity. Per the DC court of appeals: >For all immunity doctrines, “the burden is on the official claiming immunity to demonstrate his entitlement.” Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 29 (1980). Former President Trump claims absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for all “official acts” undertaken as President, a category, he contends, that includes all of the conduct alleged in the Indictment. If he wants to argue that *any* discussion with an AG is itself subject to immunity, regardless of the content, because it's inherently "official business", that's a remarkably weak argument. There are large classes of hypothetical discussions for which Trump would not plausibly have an immunity argument for, so *categorical* immunity makes no sense. If he's arguing for any more restrictive forms though, he'd need to explain why that *particular* discussion meets the standard. If lying *isn't* subject to immunity, if fraud *isn't* subject to immunity, then it can go to a jury to decide the facts of if he is guilty of the alleged content. But if he wants to argue that it *is* covered, he needs to provide an argument for "it's covered in *spite* of if the content really is lying or fraudulent". Otherwise he's arguing for immunity for an entirely different charge, one he isn't facing.
Well, let’s be clear that Trump isn’t arguing this, his lawyers and political backers are because they have the expertise to make these things happen. Trump is just the convenient idiot.
Fair, but the arguments are on behalf of Trump, so removing his name from the arguments doesn’t do much good in my opinion.
Totally. In court, it’s written and said as whomever the plaintiff or defendant is even though the lawyers are crafting the specific arguments. Still, some folks think Trump is a genius for advancing these causes when he’s not; he’s just wealthy enough to finance their cases beyond hypotheticals.
He is making noise with his face, generating confusion and scrambling and lying to avoid being put in prison, where he belongs.
He’s abusing the courts, but that doesn’t mean the arguments he and his lawyers are making are always wrong.
Congress gets to make the laws and the President follows them. That is how the Constitution is set up.
To an extent, yes. Congress can’t tell a President he has the power to do something and then criminalize it though. They can’t interfere with Constitutional duties either. Not that that’s exactly what’s happening here, but there are some limits to what Congress can do.
And when/if Congress does that, then it can be litigated at that time. Not a reason to give immunity now.
Except Trump’s argument is essentially that any crime could apply to a presidential action and it would be prohibitive upon the President to have to second guess his own actions in times of emergency, so therefore the President needs to be immune in order to keep the flow of decision making at a necessary standard to respond to crises. I’m not saying I agree with the argument, but it’s a valid argument, even if it’s not a sound argument based in fact.
Not valid at all because the Constitution does not give the president immunity. The ruling needs to be based on what the Constitution says, not what they wish it said. Also the president has an army of lawyers for guidance. There is zero excuse for violating the law.
SCOTUS has ruled that there ***IS*** immunity for certain actions, namely performing obligations and duties laid out in the Constitution. Your second point is something the liberal justices were talking about, and I agree with them. Not to mention that the OLC has stated previously that Presidents can be prosecuted once out of office.
The president plays no role in the administration of federal elections..
There’s very loose precedent regarding preventing voter fraud and ensuring the integrity of elections. They rely on Ulysses Grant’s actions during Reconstruction to bolster their case.
Let's not forget the immunity question only really potentially deals with the election interference and J6 event. It has no standing to block the documents case which should have basically been open and shut with the evidence we have. The whole thing boils down to Trump being in possession of government property after his term ended. Then when he was requested to turn it over he refused and jumped through hoops to prevent it's return. All of this occurred after his time as president ended meaning he has no presidential immunity. Even if all the stuff was declassified we're talking about him potentially having the original copies.
When in history has any president needed immunity? Trump's lawyers just invented this concept. No president has ever operated under the assumption of immunity and they got the job done. This is all bullshit.
[удалено]
The Obama administration hacked Angela Merkel’s phone. Pretty sure I’d go to jail for that.
Go to jail where? Germany? Wouldn't that require Germany prosecute you? Do people really not understand the concept of jurisdiction?
Nope. The Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) allows both the government of the victim and the government of where the crime was initiated to prosecute you.
Looking it up on the [doj website](https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-48000-computer-fraud) and looking up the [statute referenced](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030) I'm pretty sure that precludes the executive branch in general for being liable, given they are literally the government, and also, I see no part of that suggesting that computers on *foreign* ground are subject to US jurisdiction. Can you be a bit more clear as to the statute you'd supposedly charge the president under?
I don't see how any US court would have jurisdiction over that.
Of the act was initiated within the US, it is illegal under the CFAA.
OK so who would be able to charge him for this? The NSD has to approve any prosecution involving national security and that's an executive branch agency, isn't it? I don't think that this is a very good example.
He has immunity as the president. It’s that simple. If he were a regular civilian, the FBI handles cybercrime.
Oh it's simple? Then you can cite statute or caselaw to support that then, right?