Supreme Court Rules on Presidential l Immunity

[welkin]

Jurisdiction

US Federal Law

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Court ruled that the Presidency has absolute immunity from prosecution of criminal acts that fall under official acts while in office because of the separation of powers between the branches. Most of the allegations in the indictment are official acts and the court set guidelines for the courts to adjudicate what is outside of an official act in the indictment on the remaining counts.

vacated and remanded.

119-page ruling

 

[Zigner]

Most? 2 of the 4 is not "most." Just sayin'

 

[zddoodah]

119-page ruling

The "ruling" (i.e., the opinion of the Court) is "only" about 35 pages. However, as has become common, four of the eight associate justices wrote 65+ pages of concurrences/dissents.

 

[Tax Counsel]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Court ruled that the Presidency has absolute immunity from prosecution of criminal acts that fall under official acts while in office because of the separation of powers between the branches

I would modify that to say alleged criminal acts. Until a crime is proven in court or the defendant pleads guilty that allege act is just that, an allegation. As much as I dislike Trump, he's entitled to the same legal presumption of innocence as any other defendant.

The key take away from the decision for me is that presidential immunity depends on the judge hearing the case determining (and applleate judges agreeing) that what was done falls within the scope of the president's official duties. While the majority opinion is fine as far as it goes, it definitely does not end the various criminal legal proceedings still pending against Trump and there are a lot of things the opinion left unanswered (probably a necessity to get enough votes to get a majority). Indeed, even in the case the court heard the case was remanded for the judge to make that determination of which alleged acts fall within the scope of a president's official duties.

The decision helps him not at all for acts done after he left office, and the Court indicated that some of the charges even in the case it decided are likely outside the immunity the Court granted. It's a victory for Trump, one battle won in what is shaping up to be a long war, especially should he lose the election and thus lose ability to order his attorney general to file to dismiss the federal charges against him. That's one of his key motivations for running. He can't order the states to drop their charges against him, so he may still have those cases to contend with, though the prosecutions would likely be suspended for four years (or however much of his term he serves) they may resume once he leaves office.

 

[welkin]

While the majority opinion is fine as far as it goes, it definitely does not end the various criminal legal proceedings still pending against Trump

True, the ruling does not end the Federal cases (and perhaps some of the states' cases) yet. But they will end based on this ruling (just my opinion). Of particular note is Judge Thomas's concurring opinion about the Special Prosecutor. Why did he go that far at this time?

His exact argument is before Judge Cannon in the FL documents case. Do you think? If it is ruled that Jack Smith was not appointed by law, then so goes the DC subversion case also. It's only a matter of time.

The decision helps him not at all for acts done after he left office

What acts are you speaking about?

 

[Tax Counsel]

What acts are you speaking about?

A prime example is the case charging him with keeping federal records after he left office. Once he left office, keeping those records was of course not an act of carrying out his presidential duties. His presidential duties were by then over.

 

[army judge]

A prime example is the case charging him with keeping federal records after he left office. Once he left office, keeping those records was of course not an act of carrying out his presidential duties. His presidential duties were by then over.

 

[army judge]

His exact argument is before Judge Cannon in the FL documents case. Do you think? If it is ruled that Jack Smith was not appointed by law, then so goes the DC subversion case also. It's only a matter of time.

The worm is about to turn, again.
Some wrongs are likely to be righted.
Don't get too excited; treachery, devilment, and chicanery are never asleep.

 

[welkin]

A prime example is the case charging him with keeping federal records after he left office.

Did you know that Trump moved out of the White House while he was still the President by several days? Traditionally, the outgoing president and incoming president move out and in both on Inauguration Day. So, let me ask a question. Is moving out of the White House an official act of the presidency or one that carries the presumptive immunity?

Aside from all the other problems with the document case is the element of mens rea. And since the FBI has now admitted (in court documents) that they stage the photo of the documents of the raid and that all the boxes of documents where rearranged (mostly personal memorabilia and some classified documents), there is spoilage of the evidence to prove mens rea. Do you actually think that President Trump packed those boxes himself? The evidence shows that he did not. A staff member packed up those boxes from filing cabinets in no particular order.

Then when asked by the Archive admin. for Presidential documents under the Presidential Records Act, Trump turned over so some 24 boxes of official documents. The rest of the boxes were not even considered. Which leads one to believe that what was turned over was boxes that were marked or designated for the Archive. The rest of the boxes at the residence were personal. And Trump had no idea what was in them.

Jack Smith's case is bogus, and the indictment will be dismissed. If Trump was an old man with a failing memory who used classified documents to write a book with intent, it would never have been brought.

 

[army judge]

Did you know that Trump moved out of the White House while he was still the President by several days? Traditionally, the outgoing president and incoming president move out and in both on Inauguration Day. So, let me ask a question. Is moving out of the White House an official act of the presidency or one that carries the presumptive immunity?

Yes, I knew that.
It appears some don't know it.
Had it been more widely known, it would have been immediately debunked and discounted as another prevarication.

Facts no longer seem to matter, unless those "facts" are from the "politburo" or today's version of yesteryear's "Reich Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, also known simply as the Ministry of Propaganda".

 

[adjusterjack]

Ministry of Propaganda

AKA Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's "1984"

 

[Tax Counsel]

Did you know that Trump moved out of the White House while he was still the President by several days? Traditionally, the outgoing president and incoming president move out and in both on Inauguration Day. So, let me ask a question. Is moving out of the White House an official act of the presidency or one that carries the presumptive immunity?

Even assuming that he was allowed to move he records to his home while president, he was not permitted to keep them after his term expired. He no longer had presidential duties and there did not need those records to carry out his duties as president. As a result, once Biden became president Trump had an obligation to promptly return the. That he did not do, even after demands from the National Archives and others were made for him to return them. He dragged his feet on returning them for many months. It's not the movement of the records to his home while president that is the potential crime here, it is retention of classified material after he no longer was authorized to have them. Had he just done what was asked of him and returned the materials promptly this wouldn't have become a criminal problem for him. He had no legitimate need for the records once he left office, which is reinforced by the fact that he's been unable to point to any credible reason why keeping the records after his term was done would help him carry out any presidential duties of hi. Those duties ended when his term ended. Whatever use he planned for those records, including classified material, he was for his own benefit, not the nation's benefit.

Aside from all the other problems with the document case is the element of mens rea.

Trump does have the right to raise any defense he thinks may be successful, even as a private citizen, and nothing about the immunity issue affects that right one way or the other. Whether it was criminal or simply an act done of out of ignorance or stupidity is something for the jury to decide. Weighing against him on this is the refusal to return them promptly when asked. If Trump just made a mistake, then once informed he needed to return them he would have done that. The fact that he didn't do that suggests to me that he did have the intent to keep records, which is the only intent the government must prove. No way to guess how a jury will come out on this as I've not seen the case each side would provide. He doesn't have immunity to fall back on in this case, so the state still has the right to prosecute the charges and Trump gets all the rights of a defendant and the opportunity to challenge the state's case. The appropriate place to resolve the dispute is before a jury of ordinary Americans. Let them decide if the prosecution made a convincing case that a crime was committed by Trump.