Consequences of a SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity

I attached this link to give some backround on the question of presidential immunity for
acts in office.

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/28/1231974416/supreme-court-trump-immunity

One of several crucial questions is, were the actions in question part of Trump's political re-election campaign ( NOT immune) or were they actions that fell within the authority and responsibility of the Executive branch(immune).

One aspect of the action is question is that they relate to the administration of a federal election. Election laws fall within the responsibility of the Legislative branch to create and for the individual states to administer. Issues of compliance with election law are adjudicated by the Judicial branch. Since the states administer the election and present certified results to
Congress, and Congress counts the electoral votes, it would appear that the Executive branch has no authority or power to intervene in this process. The entry point for an incumbent into this process is through the Judicial branch as standing as a candidate. SCOTUS may have to clarify this. As mentioned in the article quotes, the closest any previous president ever came to being prosecuted was Nixon, and while the indications were that he could have been prosecuted after he resigned, he was quickly pardoned so that was never put to the test.

Another aspect , more serious, is what might happen if SCOTUS upholds the immunity claim. Consider a situation where Congress passes a law explicitly forbidding a particular action but the current President, using his Executive authority, orders it anyway. If an impeachment attempt fails, can the president be prosecuted after he is out of office ?

Suppose a future president orders the same prohibited action ? If an impeachment attempt fails, can he be prosecuted after he is out of office ?

Lotsa interesting twists and turns in these scenarios.

 

Obama must be praying they agree with trump so he doesnt get charged with murder for killing an american citizen.

 

For a fuller legal background:
ArtII.S3.5.1 Presidential Immunity to Suits and Official Conduct
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-5-1/ALDE_00013392/

While the President has absolute immunity from civil proceedings for a wide scope of actions taken as part of his official duties, the President has limited immunity from criminal proceedings.

 

Legality of a Lethal Operation by the Central Intelligence Agency Against an American Citizen
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/doj_may_2011_white_paper.pdf

Obama is unlikely to be convicted.

 

Right democrats don't care if democrat leaders kill US citizens. It's a partisan thing, we get it.

 

Well, regardless of how SCOTUS rules, if they actually get to a ruling this session, Dark Brandon is currently Top Doge, and might decide that he going to be King until he croaks

The specific question they have defined themselves to rule on includes the word "alleged", that in it's self could bring endless motions, challenges hence delays down the line.

Here's the Q:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/29/trump-trials-supreme-court-immunity?ref=upstract.com
The court will consider whether, and to what extent, “a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office”.

 

Right, Republicans don't care if republican leaders kill US citizens. The Orange Stain brags he could shoot someone in the face on Park avenue at noon and not lose a vote. It's a partisan thing, we get it.

 

So obama actually did that, and had two US citizens killed. No big deal, right?

 

It would depend on the jury. I would certainly vote to convict.

 

Was that part of his official duties? OH - AND if Obama is worried George Bush must be crapping his pants! I find it mazing this narrowed view of the world

 

Was it part of his official duties or was it something he did on his own? And what about the bloke who started not one but two unnecessary bloody wars???

 

That's being intellectually dishonest. President and cops have full immunity when protecting civilians from imminent danger. Trump was committing crimes for personal gain that had nothing to do with protecting US citizens.

 

And don’t forget the million American citizens dead because Trump royally ****ed up the pandemic response

 

What official duty would order him to to kill US civilians? That sounds crazy.

 

How did he do that?

 

Does presidential immunity cover when Obama and Biden knowingly participated in a treasonous failed coup and failed insurrection attempt by spying on American citizen and trying to overthrow a duly elected president?

 

But he hasn't done so unlike Obama

 

Would you be so kind as to prove this spurious claim??!!

 

I loathe Biden but Donald Trump was not reelected in 2016.

 

But Trump was duly elected in 2016... Trump was an American citizen prior...Page was an American citizen.....etc... Obama and Biden knowingly participated and used the US intel community in a treasonous failed coup and failed insurrection attempt by spying on American citizen and trying to overthrow a duly elected president?

Documents on request.

 

See post #18, prove it!

 

It should be noted that the two aren't necessarily exclusive. While yes, it obviously would have helped Trump, that doesn't mean that he cannot call around and question the legitimacy of votes in his official capacity as President.

What a lot of Trump haters have done in regards to the call to Georgia is act as if he was trying to order/demand that the guy (sorry, can't remember his name) "find" illegitimate votes. But if you read the whole transcript, keep things in full context and don't parse what is said, it is obvious to anyone that Trump never actually ordered anything to be done. He was practically begging the guy to find legitimate votes. This is borne by the fact that he was referring to video's which was going around showing vote counters in Georgia shooing observers out (they told them that they were closing shop and not going to count votes anymore that night) and after the observers left pulling boxes of ballots out from under tables and continuing to count the votes.

I don't care who you are, that would be suspicious to anyone.

 

Trump is going to Lose the SC ruling

It just delays a trial for a while

Trump is guilty

 

Trump's J6 trial was supposed to begin this morning in the Washington courtroom of Obama appointee Tanya Chutkan.

 

I think there should be a hard and firm line between executive duties and actions in which there is a vested personal interest in the outcome. If a president used his executive powers to question and possibly disqualify votes, it would reek of self interest versus upholding the law, regardless of whether he was correct or not. Much better to have a neutral third party have that responsibility.