Immunity decision out

But how will they now prove it? Didn’t they get most of the incriminating evidence from his files with his advisors (who all told him unequivocally that his lies were, well …lies)? All of that evidence is now unusable, right? So how do they prove the case?!

 

The better argument, IMO (and with the caveat that I haven’t read the opinions yet), is that the official duties of the presidency have nothing whatsoever to do with the counting of electoral votes (which is a process set forth in some detail in statute, none of which involves the president) such that, for example, trying to convince the vice president not to certify the electoral vote count couldn’t have possibly been an official action.

 

BBC commentator.

 

I don’t think the question of immunity means evidence or testimony gets excluded from actions that are clearly not part of the President’s official duties. The ruling pertains to his actions. The executive privilege is a different (and I thought already answered?) question. Ex President has no “executive privilege” over govt documents.

If he was advised that his actions were illegal, you’d think that would have to be relevant. Maybe some attorney-client privilege, but not sure how that works when a client is given proper advice that something is a crime, then does the crime anyway. And Trump is not actually the “client” of government lawyers, the United States Government and office of the President is their client. So he may not even be owed even attorney-client privilege to any of those people. He also does not get privilege with the non-govt lawyers who went on to aid him in his crime. Attorney client privilege is forfeited when a lawyer becomes co-conspirator and participant in a crime.

 

Shameful.

It's YOUR POS Ex-POTUS who incited the violent insurrection by his brownshirts to illegally overturn the election of his opponent, promised retribution against all those who disagree with him, and promised a dictatorship starting on DAY ONE if he 's elected (or if his next coup is successful).

Yet you shamelessly attribute Trump's fascism to the Democratic Party, which has NEVER been treasonous like your POS Ex-POTUS.

 

This.

This got lost in the shuffle, even though it's clearly been known and stated for a while.

The fake USSC took approximately 120 days to deliver THIS?

 

No.

Blame the POS ex-POTUS for breaking federal, state and local laws.

In the early 70s, I served in the US Navy for 4 years and had a Top Secret security clearance. If I had done what Trump did with classified documents, I would have spent decades in prison.

 

Fake news. The guy who left office with less jobs then when he entered, put us into the worst deficit in years, and who bankrupted several casinos, and who has the absolute dumbass idea of placing tariff’s to replace the federal income tax, he’s the one we need to be following to save the economy!

 

delay delay delay, same as immunity if he wins in november. Those other cases will never see the light of day. Yay team!

 

Yep. Expect trump to name some loyal obsequious toady to head DOJ and fire Smith should we be so all fired stupid as to vote for another dose of trump.

 

SCOTUS just made this the most consequential election of our lifetimes.

The GOP nominee is someone that thinks that anything that benefits him is perfectly fine and legal. He thinks rules exist to be worked around or ignored to his benefit. He cannot and will not differentiate between "good for the USA" and "good for himself."

Going forward, we must try to vote for president for the "best person" choice regardless of politics because this ruling has elevated the presidency to a kingdom where very few rules apply.

 

People are corrupt. white people are corrupt as are black, yellow and red people. Hence, some of us prefer to limit likely corrupt people who also have the power of the gun to force us to do their bidding.

 

Question is, how will this opinion sway Independents and Republican moderates in voting for a Trump presidency unencumbered by law?

 

Question for the military men in here.
Does an officer obey an illegal order coming from the CIC that is just an “official act”. I dont think the President’s immunity flows downhill does it?

 

I have neither read the opinion nor all the posts in this thread, but let me opine that offical.acts have never been subject to prosecution, nor should they be. The problem is what is an official act. The other problem is the creation of a presumption. Does it mean non-official acts are presumed immune? What are such acts? I would think telling Pence not to certify the election results. On the other hand, if there is a well founded suspicion of MAGA fraud in the counting of election results in November, is it not an official act to tell the VP to hold off?

 

The only people who believe thus are those with shitty attitudes like you