Is it even possible to bring charges against a sitting or former president at all now, based on this ruling?
As of right now, "official acts" are absolutely immune from prosecution or investigation, and evidence gathered from such communications cannot be used against him in any way. And anything the President does is an official act until the Supreme Court deems otherwise. Which means that somebody has to bring a case against the President. Which means you need evidence. Which you can't get because it's covered by the President's absolute immunity. And you have to have standing.
Who would have standing? The DOJ? The one with the decades-long rule of not charging a sitting president? The one that takes direct orders from the man he's supposed to be investigating? Good luck even attempting to file charges while remaining employed after lunch. And what kind of evidence could they bring? If Trump called ST6 and ordered a hit on Dolly Parton, how can you prove that when the call to ST6 would be classified in the first place, the mere existence of the phone call cannot be used against him, and he can tell the prosecutor to go pound sand if he starts snooping around? "Your Honor, I believe that the President ordered a hit on Dolly Parton.........Yes, I know the President denied that a phone call was even made, yes I know his phone records are protected by absolute immunity and he doesn't have to acknowledge the existence of the phone call let alone what was said.....No, there's no other way I can prove this phone call even took place....."
No standing + No evidence = no case. Ironically, the only person who would even have standing to sue would be the POTUS himself if he finds that he somehow needs more power.
There's only two routes to getting this undone. One is a constitutional amendment, the other is for the Court to get several justices who are eager to overturn this decision, and then bring a case to trial specifically to address this issue.
I can't think of an amendment that would likely have a broader appeal than one that says presidents aren't kings and aren't above the law. But even so, I can't see it getting passed any time soon, given the overwhelming bipartisan support it would need. Personally, I'd like to see this done anyway, if only so that we could also include a provision stating that a president can't pardon himself, and can't pardon crimes that he ordered.
By comparison, it seems a lot easier to change the balance on the court, since one way or another it will be changed over time. And assuming we reach a point where we can be confident that the majority is ready to completely erase this ruling, then you just need to bring a case against a former president.
One could wait for such a case to arise organically, but that's leaving a lot to chance. You need a former president to have allegedly committed a crime, you need a evidence enough to bring a case, you need to go through the appeals process, they need to try to use presidential immunity, and then it needs to be taken up by the Supreme Court. Any number of things could go wrong, and there could be political fallout. If there's a serious enough situation that requires this, by all means, go after them and make this an issue in the case so that it has to get appealed. Worst case scenario, they get away with something they would have gotten away with anyway.
Personally, if I were president and had shifted the balance of the court back to one that respects the rule of law, I'd probably tell the justice department to bring a case against me, appeal to the Supreme Court, ask that they expedite the appeal, and then they can completely reverse this insane precedent. It would all be contrived, but that's hardly anything new. I would make sure that anyone I appointed to the Court was down with a plan like this, If they won't do that much to safeguard the country, the constitution, and rule of law, they can't be trusted with the responsibility of being on the Supreme Court.
Experts also said that there’s no way the SCOTUS would give the president immunity for acts up to and including the assassination of a political opponent, but here we are.
Though it is, in my view unreasonably deferential to the office of the president, the ruling makes it very clear Trump does not have immunity for things like falsifying the records of his private business and refusing to turn over classified documents when he wasn't president.
He doesn't have immunity for the crimes but there is testimony about things he said to staff while in office and the Supreme Court has declared such conversations off-limits. They really went out of their way to cover for Trump, except for the part where Biden would probably have immunity for having him killed.
They really went out of their way to cover for Trump, except for the part where Biden would probably have immunity for having him killed.
Plot twist: This is all an elaborate plan by the deep state to have Trump killed, mafia style.
Ever seen Goodfellas? Remember when they said Tommy was going to be a made man, but in reality he showed up and got the back of his head blown off? Same thing here. The Supreme Court rules for Presidential immunity. Trump thinks he's just been crowned a king. Meanwhile, Biden is covertly ordering the Secret Service to instruct Trump's bodyguards to take him out. Trump gets offed by his own security team, Biden is untouchable because they can't even ask him if he called the Secret Service, let alone oredered the hit. Dark Brandon emerges, putting his sunglasses on CSI style, while a thundering YEAHHHHHHHHHH can be heard in the background. Later, rumors circulate that while Clarence Thomas and Joe Biden don't see eye to eye on many things, they both agreed that Trump had to go.
There has to be a limit to the corruption and duplicity of this facsimile of a Supreme Court, and I would have to think that it's somewhere short of ruling that efforts to cover up the misappropriation of campaign funds and filing of fraudulent financial reports count as "official acts" of a president.
But then again, they are painfully obviously grotesquely corrupt and duplicitous...
Some of the checks he signed were signed at the WH. And if I recall correctly, he signed them with a bunch of other stuff. What this means is that him signing the checks was part of an "official act", even if signing those specific checks wasn't. Which means based on the SC ruling, he can't even be questioned about signing those checks, nor can he have the fact that he signed them used against him even though they weren't part of his official duties. Take out him signing the checks at the WH and you lose a good chunk of the crime he was committed for, which will likely be used as the basis for throwing the case out.
I don't like Trump as much as the next guy, but this ruling does effectively make him a king that cannot be prosecuted. Every single one of his cases is going to go away as a result of this ruling:
The NY case, as I said above, will likely be thrown out because some of the crime was committed while in the WH.
The GA case, Fani Willis' conduct not withstanding, will likely be thrown out on the basis that Trump calling the GA SoS was an "official act". The contents of the call, criminal as it is, will likely be deemed untouchable since it happened while he was committing an official act.
The Florida case was never going to go to trial anyway because of Cannon's continuing interference, but I suspect that she'll just follow the step-by-step blueprint that Clarence Thomas gave her to just have the whole thing dismissed. And I expect the DC case to be dismissed by the supreme court once they rule that special counsels are invalid.
The GA case, Fani Willis’ conduct not withstanding, will likely be thrown out on the basis that Trump calling the GA SoS was an “official act”. The contents of the call, criminal as it is, will likely be deemed untouchable since it happened while he was committing an official act.
No, what I expect to see is the judge ruling that re-election is not (and in line with previous case law, never has been) one of the core or official duties of the President and therefore any acts he undertook in the furtherance of that aren't immune from prosecution.
And that's when Roberts will overthrow it, because they can't have their newly minted king missing his tee time rotting in a Georgia prison.
You could well be right, but I have a hard time believing that any court - even this grotesquely corrupt one - would attempt such rulings.
So far, while obviously a significant threat, their immunity rulings have actually been broadly in line with established precedent. And they specifically stated that the precise definition of an "official act" was something that was going to have to be worked out in future rulings.
Even with as cynical as I am, I find it hard to believe that they actually intend to rule that anything that might be done in the midst of carrying out some entirely and completely unrelated official act is afforded the same protection as that official act. That would rather obviously make it so that the president could, for instance, pause in the middle of signing a bill and do literally anything - absolutely anything at all - and be entirely immune from any and all consequences.
Yes - it is possible that they'll rule that way, but again, even as cynical as I am, I can't imagine that they actually will, if for no other reason than that that would empower the president to order the summary execution of all Supreme Court justices.
You could well be right, but I have a hard time believing that any court - even this grotesquely corrupt one - would attempt such rulings.
gestures broadly
Have you been paying attention lately?
So far, while obviously a significant threat, their immunity rulings have actually been broadly in line with established precedent. And they specifically stated that the precise definition of an “official act” was something that was going to have to be worked out in future rulings.
Here's the problem. Attempting to prosecute someone based on that logic borders on entrapment. Based on the way the ruling is worded, Trump could call Seal Team 6 tomorrow and "tell them to take out <insert legitimate threat here>. Oh, and by the way, take out Dolly Parton on the way there. " , and nobody could do anything about it. Since he was in the midst of carrying out an official duty, he can't even be asked about the contents of the phone call, let alone if he ordered them to take out Dolly Parton. " Sure, the Supreme Court may very well rule that it was not an official act....years from now, after it's made its way through the rest of the court system. But you can't go back and charge someone with a crime for committing an act that was perfectly legal when it was committed. And right now, based on the wording of the Supreme Court ruling, the President would be absolutely immune from even being investigated for it, let alone prosecuted -- until they say otherwise. Which would be fine for whoever is #2 on Trump's hit list, but it would still suck to be Dolly Parton.
Even with as cynical as I am, I find it hard to believe that they actually intend to rule that anything that might be done in the midst of carrying out some entirely and completely unrelated official act is afforded the same protection as that official act. That would rather obviously make it so that the president could, for instance, pause in the middle of signing a bill and do literally anything - absolutely anything at all - and be entirely immune from any and all consequences.
Yes - it is possible that they’ll rule that way, but again, even as cynical as I am, I can’t imagine that they actually will, if for no other reason than that that would empower the president to order the summary execution of all Supreme Court justices.
That's pretty much exactly what they said would happen. They spelled it out in great detail. If the President is engaging in an official act, he cannot be investigated for it, and the act and anything related to it cannot be used as evidence against him, even if it's evidence of an unrelated crime. Which means yes, right now he can literally pause in the middle of signing a bill, order the military to nuke Wisconsin because he hates cheese, finish signing the bill, and nobody can touch him.
Six years after the Manhattan District Attorney's Office began an investigation that resulted in Donald Trump becoming the first former president ever convicted of a crime, the case continues to be beset by extraordinary curveballs.
"That wasn't just a curve, that was a 12-6 breaking ball," said Michael Cohen, Trump's ex-attorney who was a key witness in the case against him, referring to a baseball pitch that befuddles hitters when it sharply drops.
Trump's lawyers indicated in their letter that their motion will focus on evidence introduced at trial that related to social media posts, public statements and witness testimony from his time in office.
Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble, even if it means lying or making up stories," Trump wrote in one April 2018 tweet entered into evidence.
Trump was convicted in May of 34 counts of falsification of business records for signing off on an effort to cover up reimbursements for a "hush money" payment to an adult film star as he ran for office in 2016.
"In the event that it is set aside, I would expect that the government would move to re-try the case, and exclude the evidence Judge Merchan decides could be in violation of the Supreme Court decision," Klieman said.
The original article contains 729 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
