C/p with permission from a friend who taught Constitutional Law:
I’m not going to sugarcoat it – today’s decision by SCOTUS in Trump v. United States is bad. Is it as bad as some people are reporting? I’m going to leave that to you all to decide.
For the TL;DR crowd, here are some quick answers to the questions people have already asked me:
1. Does this mean that all the cases against Trump will be dismissed and he will no longer have to face any criminal charges? NO.
2. Did SCOTUS just say that all presidents can do whatever they want without any consequences? NO.
3. Did SCOTUS just make prosecuting a president (or former president) for their actions while in office exponentially more difficult? YES.
It is not insignificant that the ruling was a 6-3 decision along ideological lines (in other words, the 6 conservative justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) all agreed with the ruling, and the 3 liberal justices (Sotamayor, Kagan, and Jackson) all dissented.
The actual holding in this case reads, “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
I’ll break this down for you into three parts:
The court ruled that a president or former president has absolute immunity for official actions that are part of their core Constitutional powers. Absolute immunity means they can *never* be prosecuted for these actions. The core Constitutional powers of the President are the powers listed in Article II of the Constitution. These powers are to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. That means if what the president did was an official act in furtherance of any of those things, the President or former President cannot be prosecuted for it in any way at any time. For example, if the President were to grant a pardon in furtherance of an illegal scheme, he could not be criminally prosecuted for it. Or, if the President were to order the armed forces to commit an illegal act or commit a legal act in furtherance of an illegal scheme, the President could not be criminally prosecuted for it. In fact, SCOTUS specifically mentioned that the President would have absolute immunity in regard to his threats to fire Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen because choosing who fills the Cabinet is part of the core Constitutional powers of a President.
You’re about to say that the President does way more stuff than just those seven things, though. Correct. For other official duties, the President has what’s called presumptive immunity. What this means is that, legally, courts will start with the assumption that the President/former President has immunity for that action, but a prosecutor can rebut that presumption (use evidence to show that such immunity should not be granted – ie: evidence that the action was not really an official action, but a personal action). For example, Trump’s pressure campaign on VP Pence to refuse to certify the results of the 2020 election would have the presumption of immunity because it is an official duty of the President to discuss official duties with the Vice President and other members of his cabinet. (This example was specifically mentioned in SCOTUS’s decision as being a case where there would be presumptive, not absolute, immunity).
Both absolute and presumptive immunity apply ONLY to official actions. Anything the President/Former President was doing that was not part of his official duties can still give rise to criminal liability. For example, if the President randomly punched someone in the face, he could still be criminally prosecuted for assault unless it was, somehow, part of his official duties to punch that guy (like, I don’t even know how it could be, but stranger things have happened). Or, a more pertinent example, if he was no longer President at the time he refused to return official government documents when requested to do so, it would not be part of his official duties because he was no longer President and, therefore, no longer *had* any official duties.
In a portion of the ruling that compounds its awfulness, SCOTUS said, in determining what’s considered an official action and not an official action, courts may NOT look at the President’s motives for those actions. Nor conduct which falls under absolute immunity cannot even be used as evidence in a criminal case where the President/former President is criminally charged. It is this part of the ruling that is the most alarming part about this already very alarming case. It cuts prosecutors off from using evidence that would be essential to rebutting the presumption of immunity and to proving guilt. This is an example of how SCOTUS is trying to make it *seem* like absolute immunity for all actions of a President isn’t being granted when, in reality, they are making it nearly impossible to rebut the presumption of immunity and simultaneously, making it exponentially harder to prove cases where a President *doesn’t* have immunity.
SCOTUS then returned the case to the lower court to determine which, if any, of the actions with which former President Trump is charged fall under absolute immunity or presumptive immunity. The charges that fall under presumptive immunity will still go forward IF Special Prosecutor Jack Smith can rebut the presumption that the action Trump was taking was an official act. Does this mean that the Trump cases will take even longer to get to trial? Absolutely. However, that ship had already sailed long before today because none of them were on track to be tried prior to the November election, anyway (partly because SCOTUS took up this case and everything had to be put on pause until it was decided).
This ruling fundamentally reshapes the office of the President and the idea in our country that “no one is above the law” because, in large measure, SCOTUS has just place the President above the law. Impeachment for a President’s actions is still possible, for treasonous/criminal actions a President might take, should the political will exist to both impeach and convict. This is small consolation as we have already seen the lack of political will to do so when a President is of the same party as the majority in one or both houses.
What does this mean for us going forward? It means that the person we elect to put in the office of the President needs to be trustworthy beyond reproach because, otherwise, whoever is in office can use their power to push us into authoritarianism and damage our democracy beyond recognition.
I hope this helps you understand this decision better.
If I am reading this correctly then as commander in chief of the military, an official action could include, say, ordering the military to prevent congress from convening to do something that would remove the president from office. It may not work in the end, but the president could rest assured that he has absolute immunity from it after out of office. Does that stretch too far? A lot of interesting and potentially scary hypotheticals from this.
SCOTUS only said that courts must decide if the action of the president is within his official duties, as adjudicated by lower courts, or outside his duties (say, beating his wife). If the action is part of his duties, whether you agree with the action or not, he’s immune from prosecution. The POLITICAL remedy (impeachment) still exists. If the action is outside his duties, prosecute away.
Frank is happy today. But wait until President Chelsea Clinton or President Malia Obama start trading pardons for cash in Oval Office. I’ll bet Frank feels differently then.
Richard Nixon needed THIS Supreme Court 50 years ago. This court never would have ordered the release of the tapes and since the Watergate break-in was largely plotted and carried out in-house, there’s a strong argument this court would have ruled Nixon was operating within his official duties. Both sides of the aisle should be equally terrified by this. God help us if the American voters put Trump back into power. Here’s something even more terrifying to contemplate — imagine what a future President Marjorie Taylor Greene could do under that immunity ruling.
I’d wager Trump is only the start of the parade of craven awful people who will seek the office of President. Monday’s SCOTUS decision was an engraved invitation for the absolute worst people among us to apply for the job in the future.
Do I have this right? Trump is re-elected. Project 2025 gets implemented, putting his people in charge of Commerce Dept. Trump imposes his tariffs on all imports. Businesses that want tariff waivers must plead with cultists to get relief. Trump and cronies conspire to require payments to Trump to get tariff relief. Trade rules are sole province of Pres so he can’t be prosecuted. Even if he could be, the payments are legal “gratuities.” And communications between POTUS and Commerce setting up the scheme can’t be used by the prosecution. What’d I miss?
The ruling does go against the spirit of the constitution’s protection of the President while in office. It is always thought that they could be prosecuted once out of office for crimes. Poor administration was specifically argued out of the clause during the Constitution Convention.
I also know that some assumptions were made about the character of officeholders that no longer applies. Therefore, we need some new amendments that help to spell out the limits of powers & immunity.
Jamie, thanks for the examples. I would also add one about embezzling funds (very common occurrence).
I was not surprised by some immunity for the President, but the restricted use of evidence worries me the most. I wouldn’t be as nervous if I thought the Supreme Court me
I wouldn’t be as nervous if i thought SCOTUS would interpret “Official Acts” very narrowly. But based on previous rulings I’m assuming a wide interpretation.
I'm glad you made the Watergate connection. I've been reading a lot if Hunter S Thompson from that era of our history and this ruling sounds like a complete 180 from the rulings that made clear there is no "divine right of kings" in this nation.
This is an incredibly sad, frustrating time for our country and all her people. So much we have been taught and have believed about the structure of our government has been shown to be on shaky ground if not downright untrue. What a farce for the opinion to state so blithely that our government is a separation of powers when they have walked all over that. We have become a separation of parties and whatever the party leaders want to happen is what happens.
Want to stop a President from appointing judges? Simple, Senate majority leader doesn’t hold a vote. Don’t want your guy to face consequences for actions? Refuse to impeach or convict saying the judicial branch can handle it knowing that you have packed courts so that’s an unlikely result. President tired of waiting for Congress to take action? Issue an executive order. There are numerous examples across both parties. It has come down to whatever the leaders of one party can do to limit or control any impact of the other party,
This ruling did not have to be this bad. Absolute immunity for carrying out the duties of the office for lawful reasons seems like a reasonable belief. Many practices fall more into a gray area and could sometimes be a legitimate official act and sometimes not, so presumptive comes into play. What throws all that off the rails is the portion from which Barrett joined the other ladies in dissenting. As others have pointed out, if prosecutors and courts can not consider intent, motive, etc, it is almost impossible to try a president for much of anything. And that is completely wrong and dangerous.
This court has put in flashing neon lights the importance of voting and the consequences of the votes we cast. Regardless of how we feel about any given candidate, our choices are limited to those the two parties put before us. May we all choose wisely at every level of our government.
This isn’t about Trump. Despite what he thinks, the smarts needed to attend MIT by his uncle doesn’t transfer to him by osmosis. He was given a list to choose from. Any one of them would fit the bill.
No, the real smarts here is McConnell. He had & used the power…to withhold a vote, push through a vote, hold a December vote, all because he could. And his colleagues cheered on his power grab.
HE is the political assassin. And the result is a small subset of judicial philosophy star chamber gaining a majority on the court. It was a 40 year end game. And it will be two generations before the pendulum swings. And the America I know will suffer immensely.
There are many worst parts of this, but the idea that evidence can’t be used to prove criminality shows what absolute filth this illegitimate scrotus is.
And the idiot magats? They cheer. How long would they cheer if Biden was as sick, as hateful, as indecent as that rapist is? If he pushed this opinion to the limit by assassinating 6 or the 9? Or the Speaker? How about if he pardoned every criminal in every federal prison, with the promise that they go burn down every republican politician’s home?
It’s a disgusting day in America, and the Fourth of July this year means absolutely nothing. Then again, we destroyed the king that tried to enslave us, we’ll easily do it again.
Because magats are the dumbest, laziest, most obese & cowardly collection of scum in the history of the world.
I would like to say that the Biden administration should be exploring some creative ways to use their newfound power because I can guarantee that Trump's team will go out of their way to exploit it fully if they make their way back into the White House. However, it's obvious that what this Supreme Court really means is that only Republican presidents have full immunity for official acts.
The US military can't operate on US soil. So sending military after political opponent would be a illegal order. Killing anyone would violate their civil rights. Sending DOJ after someone. They would need evidence of wrong doing. Yes, I think the court went a little over board on what is considered official duties. But consider this, when a president orders a drone strike on someone, isn't that murder. Doesn't he need immunity?
Unless you say they are maybe acting on behalf of a foreign nation based on intelligence no one else is allowed to see for national security purposes? Hopefully we can go a while longer without having to protect our soil, but not having had to do it for a while doesn’t mean it can’t become necessary.
The Court says impeachment is the only available recourse to hold a Chief Executive accountable for...say, shooting someone on 5th Avenue. This is in line with other recent Court decisions handing Congress the responsibility to make decisions that had been managed other ways, such as with regulatory agencies.
The issue I have is that this Court's decisions have created an environment where Congress is no longer functional enough to deliver these decisions. Citizens United means money now has outsize influence, and redistricting has created many deep red or blue areas that compromise is too often impossible.
I am very saddened by the ruling. I expected it after seeing the rulings last week. Decades of right-wing planning has come to fruition. I think about the years I listened to Boortz, and I see the result now. They told us their plans. They followed through. This is the result.
Separate but equal. I don't want to read the opinions yet because I know it will anger me. But how do they deal with that. Equal in the eyes of the law is now gone for the head of one branch. Inability to research motive seems to remove a core part of criminal investigation and prosecution.
Interesting comments. I still have faith in our rule of law and that courts will be able to define official acts by the president that make sense to majority of citizens.
The President is not the King, the 6 corrupt Supreme Justices are the Kings. They have decided the fate of this nation. Ultimately, they will decide what is and what is not an official act. As long as they remain in the Supreme Court, who do you think they will favor? Who are they kidding? smh
Speaking of the Biden interview tapes—don’t forget the Bush administrations destruction of all the interviews of tortured detainees during Afghan and Iraq wars… and no one was prosecuted.
For my money, Biden should use this new-found immunity to show SCOTUS what a blind-eyed mistake they’ve made by silencing a lot of malcontents, domestic and international.
C/p with permission from a friend who taught Constitutional Law:
I’m not going to sugarcoat it – today’s decision by SCOTUS in Trump v. United States is bad. Is it as bad as some people are reporting? I’m going to leave that to you all to decide.
For the TL;DR crowd, here are some quick answers to the questions people have already asked me:
1. Does this mean that all the cases against Trump will be dismissed and he will no longer have to face any criminal charges? NO.
2. Did SCOTUS just say that all presidents can do whatever they want without any consequences? NO.
3. Did SCOTUS just make prosecuting a president (or former president) for their actions while in office exponentially more difficult? YES.
It is not insignificant that the ruling was a 6-3 decision along ideological lines (in other words, the 6 conservative justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) all agreed with the ruling, and the 3 liberal justices (Sotamayor, Kagan, and Jackson) all dissented.
The actual holding in this case reads, “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
I’ll break this down for you into three parts:
The court ruled that a president or former president has absolute immunity for official actions that are part of their core Constitutional powers. Absolute immunity means they can *never* be prosecuted for these actions. The core Constitutional powers of the President are the powers listed in Article II of the Constitution. These powers are to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. That means if what the president did was an official act in furtherance of any of those things, the President or former President cannot be prosecuted for it in any way at any time. For example, if the President were to grant a pardon in furtherance of an illegal scheme, he could not be criminally prosecuted for it. Or, if the President were to order the armed forces to commit an illegal act or commit a legal act in furtherance of an illegal scheme, the President could not be criminally prosecuted for it. In fact, SCOTUS specifically mentioned that the President would have absolute immunity in regard to his threats to fire Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen because choosing who fills the Cabinet is part of the core Constitutional powers of a President.
You’re about to say that the President does way more stuff than just those seven things, though. Correct. For other official duties, the President has what’s called presumptive immunity. What this means is that, legally, courts will start with the assumption that the President/former President has immunity for that action, but a prosecutor can rebut that presumption (use evidence to show that such immunity should not be granted – ie: evidence that the action was not really an official action, but a personal action). For example, Trump’s pressure campaign on VP Pence to refuse to certify the results of the 2020 election would have the presumption of immunity because it is an official duty of the President to discuss official duties with the Vice President and other members of his cabinet. (This example was specifically mentioned in SCOTUS’s decision as being a case where there would be presumptive, not absolute, immunity).
Both absolute and presumptive immunity apply ONLY to official actions. Anything the President/Former President was doing that was not part of his official duties can still give rise to criminal liability. For example, if the President randomly punched someone in the face, he could still be criminally prosecuted for assault unless it was, somehow, part of his official duties to punch that guy (like, I don’t even know how it could be, but stranger things have happened). Or, a more pertinent example, if he was no longer President at the time he refused to return official government documents when requested to do so, it would not be part of his official duties because he was no longer President and, therefore, no longer *had* any official duties.
In a portion of the ruling that compounds its awfulness, SCOTUS said, in determining what’s considered an official action and not an official action, courts may NOT look at the President’s motives for those actions. Nor conduct which falls under absolute immunity cannot even be used as evidence in a criminal case where the President/former President is criminally charged. It is this part of the ruling that is the most alarming part about this already very alarming case. It cuts prosecutors off from using evidence that would be essential to rebutting the presumption of immunity and to proving guilt. This is an example of how SCOTUS is trying to make it *seem* like absolute immunity for all actions of a President isn’t being granted when, in reality, they are making it nearly impossible to rebut the presumption of immunity and simultaneously, making it exponentially harder to prove cases where a President *doesn’t* have immunity.
SCOTUS then returned the case to the lower court to determine which, if any, of the actions with which former President Trump is charged fall under absolute immunity or presumptive immunity. The charges that fall under presumptive immunity will still go forward IF Special Prosecutor Jack Smith can rebut the presumption that the action Trump was taking was an official act. Does this mean that the Trump cases will take even longer to get to trial? Absolutely. However, that ship had already sailed long before today because none of them were on track to be tried prior to the November election, anyway (partly because SCOTUS took up this case and everything had to be put on pause until it was decided).
This ruling fundamentally reshapes the office of the President and the idea in our country that “no one is above the law” because, in large measure, SCOTUS has just place the President above the law. Impeachment for a President’s actions is still possible, for treasonous/criminal actions a President might take, should the political will exist to both impeach and convict. This is small consolation as we have already seen the lack of political will to do so when a President is of the same party as the majority in one or both houses.
What does this mean for us going forward? It means that the person we elect to put in the office of the President needs to be trustworthy beyond reproach because, otherwise, whoever is in office can use their power to push us into authoritarianism and damage our democracy beyond recognition.
I hope this helps you understand this decision better.
If I am reading this correctly then as commander in chief of the military, an official action could include, say, ordering the military to prevent congress from convening to do something that would remove the president from office. It may not work in the end, but the president could rest assured that he has absolute immunity from it after out of office. Does that stretch too far? A lot of interesting and potentially scary hypotheticals from this.
Thank you for the analysis.
There is still impeachment.
SCOTUS only said that courts must decide if the action of the president is within his official duties, as adjudicated by lower courts, or outside his duties (say, beating his wife). If the action is part of his duties, whether you agree with the action or not, he’s immune from prosecution. The POLITICAL remedy (impeachment) still exists. If the action is outside his duties, prosecute away.
A reasonable decision, and correct…
You ignore the entire paragraph on the limits to rebutting immunity claims.
Not at all. They are adjudicated..
Frank is happy today. But wait until President Chelsea Clinton or President Malia Obama start trading pardons for cash in Oval Office. I’ll bet Frank feels differently then.
Richard Nixon needed THIS Supreme Court 50 years ago. This court never would have ordered the release of the tapes and since the Watergate break-in was largely plotted and carried out in-house, there’s a strong argument this court would have ruled Nixon was operating within his official duties. Both sides of the aisle should be equally terrified by this. God help us if the American voters put Trump back into power. Here’s something even more terrifying to contemplate — imagine what a future President Marjorie Taylor Greene could do under that immunity ruling.
Please don’t say President MTG two more times. We don’t need a Beetlejuice moment
I’d wager Trump is only the start of the parade of craven awful people who will seek the office of President. Monday’s SCOTUS decision was an engraved invitation for the absolute worst people among us to apply for the job in the future.
The second guy is there now…
Do I have this right? Trump is re-elected. Project 2025 gets implemented, putting his people in charge of Commerce Dept. Trump imposes his tariffs on all imports. Businesses that want tariff waivers must plead with cultists to get relief. Trump and cronies conspire to require payments to Trump to get tariff relief. Trade rules are sole province of Pres so he can’t be prosecuted. Even if he could be, the payments are legal “gratuities.” And communications between POTUS and Commerce setting up the scheme can’t be used by the prosecution. What’d I miss?
You missed that every republican thinks this is great.
The ruling does go against the spirit of the constitution’s protection of the President while in office. It is always thought that they could be prosecuted once out of office for crimes. Poor administration was specifically argued out of the clause during the Constitution Convention.
I also know that some assumptions were made about the character of officeholders that no longer applies. Therefore, we need some new amendments that help to spell out the limits of powers & immunity.
Jamie, thanks for the examples. I would also add one about embezzling funds (very common occurrence).
I was not surprised by some immunity for the President, but the restricted use of evidence worries me the most. I wouldn’t be as nervous if I thought the Supreme Court me
I wasn’t finished.
I wouldn’t be as nervous if i thought SCOTUS would interpret “Official Acts” very narrowly. But based on previous rulings I’m assuming a wide interpretation.
I'm glad you made the Watergate connection. I've been reading a lot if Hunter S Thompson from that era of our history and this ruling sounds like a complete 180 from the rulings that made clear there is no "divine right of kings" in this nation.
This is an incredibly sad, frustrating time for our country and all her people. So much we have been taught and have believed about the structure of our government has been shown to be on shaky ground if not downright untrue. What a farce for the opinion to state so blithely that our government is a separation of powers when they have walked all over that. We have become a separation of parties and whatever the party leaders want to happen is what happens.
Want to stop a President from appointing judges? Simple, Senate majority leader doesn’t hold a vote. Don’t want your guy to face consequences for actions? Refuse to impeach or convict saying the judicial branch can handle it knowing that you have packed courts so that’s an unlikely result. President tired of waiting for Congress to take action? Issue an executive order. There are numerous examples across both parties. It has come down to whatever the leaders of one party can do to limit or control any impact of the other party,
This ruling did not have to be this bad. Absolute immunity for carrying out the duties of the office for lawful reasons seems like a reasonable belief. Many practices fall more into a gray area and could sometimes be a legitimate official act and sometimes not, so presumptive comes into play. What throws all that off the rails is the portion from which Barrett joined the other ladies in dissenting. As others have pointed out, if prosecutors and courts can not consider intent, motive, etc, it is almost impossible to try a president for much of anything. And that is completely wrong and dangerous.
This court has put in flashing neon lights the importance of voting and the consequences of the votes we cast. Regardless of how we feel about any given candidate, our choices are limited to those the two parties put before us. May we all choose wisely at every level of our government.
This isn’t about Trump. Despite what he thinks, the smarts needed to attend MIT by his uncle doesn’t transfer to him by osmosis. He was given a list to choose from. Any one of them would fit the bill.
No, the real smarts here is McConnell. He had & used the power…to withhold a vote, push through a vote, hold a December vote, all because he could. And his colleagues cheered on his power grab.
HE is the political assassin. And the result is a small subset of judicial philosophy star chamber gaining a majority on the court. It was a 40 year end game. And it will be two generations before the pendulum swings. And the America I know will suffer immensely.
There are many worst parts of this, but the idea that evidence can’t be used to prove criminality shows what absolute filth this illegitimate scrotus is.
And the idiot magats? They cheer. How long would they cheer if Biden was as sick, as hateful, as indecent as that rapist is? If he pushed this opinion to the limit by assassinating 6 or the 9? Or the Speaker? How about if he pardoned every criminal in every federal prison, with the promise that they go burn down every republican politician’s home?
It’s a disgusting day in America, and the Fourth of July this year means absolutely nothing. Then again, we destroyed the king that tried to enslave us, we’ll easily do it again.
Because magats are the dumbest, laziest, most obese & cowardly collection of scum in the history of the world.
I would like to say that the Biden administration should be exploring some creative ways to use their newfound power because I can guarantee that Trump's team will go out of their way to exploit it fully if they make their way back into the White House. However, it's obvious that what this Supreme Court really means is that only Republican presidents have full immunity for official acts.
Once the barn door is open, it doesn't usually close again
The US military can't operate on US soil. So sending military after political opponent would be a illegal order. Killing anyone would violate their civil rights. Sending DOJ after someone. They would need evidence of wrong doing. Yes, I think the court went a little over board on what is considered official duties. But consider this, when a president orders a drone strike on someone, isn't that murder. Doesn't he need immunity?
How do they defend US soil then?
Can't operate against civilians on US soil. Haven't had to defend US soil in years.
Unless you say they are maybe acting on behalf of a foreign nation based on intelligence no one else is allowed to see for national security purposes? Hopefully we can go a while longer without having to protect our soil, but not having had to do it for a while doesn’t mean it can’t become necessary.
The Court says impeachment is the only available recourse to hold a Chief Executive accountable for...say, shooting someone on 5th Avenue. This is in line with other recent Court decisions handing Congress the responsibility to make decisions that had been managed other ways, such as with regulatory agencies.
The issue I have is that this Court's decisions have created an environment where Congress is no longer functional enough to deliver these decisions. Citizens United means money now has outsize influence, and redistricting has created many deep red or blue areas that compromise is too often impossible.
I am very saddened by the ruling. I expected it after seeing the rulings last week. Decades of right-wing planning has come to fruition. I think about the years I listened to Boortz, and I see the result now. They told us their plans. They followed through. This is the result.
Separate but equal. I don't want to read the opinions yet because I know it will anger me. But how do they deal with that. Equal in the eyes of the law is now gone for the head of one branch. Inability to research motive seems to remove a core part of criminal investigation and prosecution.
Interesting comments. I still have faith in our rule of law and that courts will be able to define official acts by the president that make sense to majority of citizens.
There’s always impeachment, too…
Trump's been impeached, as was Clinton. What does that do besides seemingly being a slap on the wrist?
Neither impeachable conduct rose to the level requiring removal from office…
The President is not the King, the 6 corrupt Supreme Justices are the Kings. They have decided the fate of this nation. Ultimately, they will decide what is and what is not an official act. As long as they remain in the Supreme Court, who do you think they will favor? Who are they kidding? smh
One would expect reasoned analysis from you, but sadly you failed.
Bob, here's my tweet about this exact item from back in April, during arguments
https://x.com/jamiedupree/status/1783498686426698076?t=cZYl8zX_gPQUfYXtBJx6_A&s=19
Let me amplify - you plagiarized Sotomayor’s dissent hypothetical in your column with marian’s pretended it was your question.
column without attribution and pretended.
Autocorrect got me.
Hi Bob. Actually, I didn't do that. But even if I did, the question is still a good one. What's your answer?
Speaking of the Biden interview tapes—don’t forget the Bush administrations destruction of all the interviews of tortured detainees during Afghan and Iraq wars… and no one was prosecuted.
https://www.wesa.fm/2010-11-09/no-charges-in-destruction-of-cia-interrogation-tapes
For my money, Biden should use this new-found immunity to show SCOTUS what a blind-eyed mistake they’ve made by silencing a lot of malcontents, domestic and international.