SCOTUS hears arguments in Presidential immunity Case.
Link to quote: Here’s What the Framers of the Constitution Said About Impeachment | Truthout
The former president's lawyers say all presidents are immune from prosecution for anything they do in office, otherwise those who hold the office will be intimidated by future prosecutions. There are at least 3 justices who will question that. Thus, the only way to hold a president criminally accountable, Trump's attorneys might argue, is if a president is first impeached in the House of Representatives and then convicted by two-thirds of the Senate. This is an important decision which will involve future presidents. I'm thinking that the Court will find a middle road allowing a President limited immunity.
Meanwhile on his way to court, Donald Trump stopped to talk with construction workers. They were chanting 4 more years and USA USA USA.
Yesterday on the campaign trail, Joe Biden for the second time urged voters to choose freedom over democracy. Does he even know what he is saying?
In other news:
Universities are surrendering to the protestors, who are their creations. Once upon a time an economist named Arnold Kling, published a book in which he distinguished between what have to now be regarded as Marxists and Conservatives. Progressives see the world as a struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed, and they try to help the oppressed. Conservatives see the world as a struggle between civilization and barbarism, between order and chaos and they try to protect civilization. So it now seems.
“Go back to class,” Speaker Mike Johnson told protesters while visiting Columbia. He suggested calling in the National Guard.
At the University of Texas, police officers in riot gear blocked protesters and arrested at least 20 of them.
Trump said the demonstrations were even worse than Charlottesville.
President Biden signed a bill with aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, calling it “a good day for world peace.” The bill includes $1 billion in humanitarian aid. “Israel must make sure all this aid reaches the Palestinians in Gaza without delay,” Biden said.
Three Arizona Republicans voted with Democrats to repeal the state's abortion law. The bill now goes to the Arizona Senate.
The U.S. secretly shipped new long-range missiles to Ukraine.
Tags
Who is online
39 visitors
Good morning.
hypothetically, if SCOTUS grants trump full immunity for his actions as president, and as soon as that decision comes down, biden can order the secret service and the FBI to liquidate him and his family, along with every male justice on the SCOTUS, every house rep and senator that voted against election certification, every fake elector, every co-conspirator, every J6 insurrectionist, and every one of trump's elected supporters across the US. ... see how that works?
I like a comment I saw on twitter. If the Supreme Court rules a president has absolute immunity , Biden can have all the conservative justices on the Supreme Court immediately arrested.
I hope you don't think this will be a decision between full immunity and zero immunity.
This court is going to define the limits.
But that would resemble an insurrection of sorts. And he can order all he wants. I recall a time in history when a man with a funny little mustache ordered some genocide and the old "the boss told me to do it" didn't hold water then or now as convictions of those that followed those orders are still, or were, being hunted down and prosecuted.
Limited immunity does Trump no good. He needs absolute immunity and that is what his lawyer is arguing for. That is why his lawyer, arguing in front of the Supreme Court, said that whether or not a president would be immune from charges resulting from his ordering the assassination of a political rival would depend on the individual circumstances.
[✘]
How very Putin of him. Now on what grounds would they be arrested? Hurting the feelings of the left and Democrats? Oh, wait, that's what started all this in the first place.
On what orders? Dictator Traitor Joe? Surely not on a Constitutional or legal authority.
And you don't see how that protects Biden as well?
Trump does not need immunity. Trump only needs to push the worst of these cases out past Nov and win the election. If that happens these cases will be killed and buried. This request on an immunity ruling is just part of the stalling tactic.
... and the robert's SCOTUS is now officially complicit in that stalling tactic.
That would be appropriate. Given they took this case, one would hope they did so in order to establish clarity on this matter. It would be a real shame if the end result of them taking the case is to simply formulate directives and push same back to a lower court to resolve.
That's literally the role of the Supreme Court in our system.
No that is NOT literally the role. The SCotUS does not exclusively impose parameters and then push resolution back to the lower court. The SCotUS most definitely also acts as the final deciding agent. Sometimes it remands, other times it makes the final decision.
So, again, it would be a real shame if the end result of the SCotUS taking this case is to simply remand to a lower court. Since they took this case, one would hope that they did so to resolve it.
That would be absolutely awesome and take care of a lot of our problems.
BINGO
I am listening. Trump's case is failing miserably...
How do you know?
Dreamer it seems
The list of talking points.
Because I am listening to the hearing live on YouTube. Even the conservative Justices are eating Trump's Lawyer's lunch...
Perception is a funny thing when arrived at subjectively.................
Even Fox News is agreeing with my analysis...
Feel free to post links.
I am at work and would love to see if what you are stating is even close to reality.
you are completely correct. the trump lawyer has been on the defensive from the beginning of this hearing
it was never about trump's legal standing, it was all about delaying the legal process.
You do know the right to a speedy trial is for the defendant, not to suit the prosecution.
Go tell it to Hunter Biden.
I'm entertained by a criminal defendant professing his innocence and using every tactic available to delay his day in court, while simultaneously complaining about how long the process is taking, as well as watching a man claiming absolute innocence now asking the court for total immunity while he was holding elected office.
Everyone drink!
watching it. judging by the majority of the justices questions and comments they are not buying the trump lawyers bullshit.
NONE of them appear to be completely agreeing with Trumps lawyer.
That is what I meant in the article. I think they will allow for limited immunity as a middle road. There will simply be some things that a president won't be immune from.
Maybe by late July they'll have a ruling.
One think to keep in mind is that the results of this will effect Biden.
it should be tomorrow.
Yes, if Trump wins this case then Biden can legally have Trump arrested and summarily executed for "National Security" reasons and get away with it because it is an "official act". Am I Right?
It will effect every President in the future.
From Jack Smith's lips to God's ears!
Oh ya, Trump is getting the electric chair.
And Biden can be arrested for the same thing.
To include the current POTUS.
oh yes.
Do you consider letting everyone into the country a crime? At least a violation of the presidential oath?
You see, every president will be subject to this shit, all because the left wants to get Trump.
of course not. migrants have a right to claim political asylum. if you dont like that, get the policy changed.
Not from inside the country and you know there are more than asylum seekers waltzing across the border.
People have the same right to claim that Biden violated the Constitution as you do to claim that Trump somehow incited a riot.
You realize that illegals made it into the country while trump was in office, right?
Nope, just want him held accountable for his criminal activities.
What does that have to do with the entire third world being invited into the US?
Nope, just want him held accountable for his criminal activities.
The ones that Bragg can't name?
Keeps him out of court proceedings. Immunity would stop the bullshit.
If Democrats believe in the law and the Constitution why do they shit on them daily?
We do, that's why trump is on trial.
The Justices are destroying Trump's lawyer...
We'll see if you're right come September.
You are dreaming. It is happening live right now. Trump's lawyer is being devastated by both conservative and liberal Justices...
I have it on too. I haven't seen him devastated yet.
We know how she's voting.
Yesterday on the campaign trail, Joe Biden for the second time urged voters to choose freedom over democracy. Does he even know what he is saying?
Not for several years now
Off topic...
No sir, I determine topic here!
I can have an opinion and my opinion is that he is off topic...
He is citing the article and btw everything is on topic.
Interesting considering I am responding to a direct quote of the article. Exactly what makes responding directly to a question in the article off topic? I will wait.
Yes you can but the fact is not the same as your opinion.
Trump said he wants to be a dictator. How is that supporting democracy?
Why do you guys keep promoting things out of context even after it has been debunked? It was clear when he said for one day and with regards to drilling and closing the border. They are called executive orders and every president does them on their first day.
Continuing to promote it just chips away at any credibility pf anyone that tries and use it like it is an attack on democracy.
When asked if he would be a dictator, a sane candidate would have said "no, but I am planning to use executive orders". Of course that wont do for Trump , because he has fanboys and fangirls who want him to be a dictator.
Yes, he must not be sane because he did not use the words you needed him to although the meaning was obvious to anyone without a heaping helping of TDS.
I dont know what your bs is supposed to prove, but I told you what was going on.
He said on day 1 he would "drill baby drill" and close the border.
That is not being a dictator.
Just pointing out your BS and constant twisting of the truth.
Why let facts get in the way?
2 very good things we need done
The bill includes $1 billion in humanitarian aid. “Israel must make sure all this aid reaches the Palestinians in Gaza without delay,” Biden said.
Nothing like throwing an impossible problem over the fence Joe. Of course if they got rid of Hamas all the aid would reach the people it is supposed to but I don't think that is what Joey meant.
Also, off topic...
He is quoting from the article.
What's the joke? Let us in on it.
it is interesting that since trump is losing badly at the supreme court his followers here want to immediately change the subject
That's what happens when some don't read their articles.
I guess you didn't read anything other than Trump in the article.
Why am I not surprised.
It's like that NY jury: All they can focus on is who the defendant is.
Wrong again
Responding to a direct quote from the article is changing the subject because the comment is not about Trump.
Perfect example of TDS
I'ts hilarious that he told Israel that and not the terrorists. Wonder who he's supporting.
Let's see:
Biden just signed the aid bill and new missiles have been shipped over night to Ukraine.
Aid for Gaza must reach the Palestinians "without delay."
For Israel: "the check is in the mail."
For Hamas: Don't worry about the American hostages Hamas. Do what you want with them. Biden will make sure the money train keeps rolling.
Please tell us who controls Gaza right now?
Hamas might still be a presence but they hardly are in control.
The IDF is in control whether they want the responsibility or not.
Nothing coming into Gaza legally enters w/o Israel's tacit approval. It was that way before Oct 7; it sure as hell is that way now.
If any of the aid does reach Hamas it will be by Palestinian civilians that are still loyal to it. Don't think there are that many of those left that aren't more concerned about fighting for their own survival.
What is hilarious is that Brandon thinks Israel wants anything to do with the aid. The US will be responsible for transporting it into Gaza, securing it, and distributing it. Think aid workers are eager to head to Gaza?
At this point the best that Gaza Palestinians can hope for is Israel to hit Rafah- remove what it thinks is the last of Hamas. It will be bloody and Palestinian civilian casualties will be high; but it will still be less than sitting around and waiting while they die from starvation, exposure, and lack of medical care.
Besides, I want to see what Israel does once they have "defeated" Hamas? Will they cave to the Zionist extremists that want to resettle Gaza? Will they turn Gaza into a real prison- and start moving Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Gaza?
Even more importantly I want to see if the far left protesters screaming "they are Hamas" suddenly lose interest and disappear? They really don't care about the Palestinians suffering in Gaza. Hell, they probably don't know about Israel's ever growing illegal settlements; IDF & settlers killing and harassment of Palestinians; and continue displacement of Palestinians.
Trump's lawyer has completed his argument. On a scale of 1 to 10 , for effectiveness and persuasion, I'd give him a 2.
I have a feeling you would have given him a 2 even if your didn't listen to it.
Factoring in triggering, that makes it a 6 or 7 … at least.
Is Brandon mentally impaired more than normal?
Israel isn't going to receive the aid, transport it into Gaza, protect it in the process, or distribute it to where it is needed.
The very most Israel will do is stay out of the way; maybe. If they don't see anyone that they think is Hamas around. Then all bets are off. Aid workers, their security, and innocent Palestinians beware of incoming impending death.
You mean like they have done in the past.
You think Israel has stayed out of the way?
.
That is hardly staying out of the way.
All that and nothing about supposedly stopping aid.
I saw an article in a "respectable" left wing online magazine yesterday (forget which one) premised on the idea that Special Counsel Smith's ONE JOB is to convict Trump before the election. That perfectly encapsulates how fucked up many progressives' view of the justice system is. The "one job" of any prosecutor is to obtain the just result. That's it. Hurrying a case to interfere in an election is the opposite of that. Which is why the DOJ has longstanding guidance to avoid timing a prosecution to effect an election, yet the left is openly demanding that happen and Smith is complying with their partisan agenda.
Here's a good, though long, summary of the issues at stake from a far left anti-Trump site (lawfare) laying out just what's at issue and how silly the idea of letting the Court of Appeals slapdash opinion stand would be. This is about defining the power of the Presidency and deserves a ruling that isn't designed for speed.
So that sniper would be willing to be executed for murder? (immunity doesn't apply to people following illegal Presidential orders) .
Also interesting that the SPecial Counsel's attorney just said a President has an absolute defense to any criminal act if his AG tells him it's legal. So per the Special Counsel, if a President gets a yes man appointed AG, he can do whatever he wants. Obviously, there's a lot to be sorted out and the idea of a blanket "no immunity ever" is simply not a serious answer.
Only absolute immunity helps Trump. That is why he has someone advocating for it.
Whether or not trying to rig an election is an "official" act is not a Supreme Court decision.
Don't kid yourself.
The only reason Brandon and the Democrats don't want absolute immunity is they already have it. Ask Brandon, Hunter, Bill and Hillary Clinton, etc.
I don’t really care if it helps trump or not. Getting the issue resolved correctly matters and it appears the court will articulate a meaningful standard providing some protection to the president short of absolute immunity that the district court can apply to trumps actions,
[✘]
as seen on twitter -
apnews.com /article/supreme-court-trump-capitol-riot-prosecution-immunity-72c885c07c77970d4380206f87b2d8ca
Supreme Court seems skeptical of Trump's claim of absolute immunity but decision's timing is unclear
By MARK SHERMAN 6-7 minutes 4/25/2024
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seems highly skeptical of former President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from prosecution, but it’s less clear that the justices are headed for a quick resolution.
Chief Justice John Roberts was among at least five members of the court Thursday who appeared likely to reject the claim of absolute immunity that would stop special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump on charges he conspired to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
Arguments were in their second hour by late morning.
The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision could be as important as the outcome. Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has been pushing to delay the trial until after the November election, and the later the justices issue their decision, the more likely he is to succeed.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two of Trump’s three high court appointees, suggested that former presidents might have some immunity and that in this case, lower courts might have to sort out whether that applied to Trump. That could further delay a trial.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the other Trump appointee, seemed less open to arguments advanced by Trump lawyer D. John Sauer.
Smith’s team is asking for a speedy resolution. The court typically issues its last opinions by the end of June, about four months before the election.
Trump, the first former president charged with crimes, had said he wanted to be at the Supreme Court on Thursday. Instead, he was in a courtroom in New York, where he is standing trial on charges that he falsified business records to keep damaging information from voters when he directed hush money payments to a former porn star to keep quiet her claims that they had a sexual encounter.
Trump’s lawyers argue that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for their official acts. Otherwise, they say, politically motivated prosecutions of former occupants of the Oval Office would become routine and presidents couldn’t function as the commander in chief if they had to worry about criminal charges.
AP AUDIO: No one is above the law. Supreme Court will decide if that includes Trump while he was president.
AP Supreme Court writer Mark Sherman reports the court is going to decide if former President Trump can be tried for his actions following the last presidential election.
Lower courts have rejected those arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on an appeals court in Washington, D.C.
The election interference conspiracy case brought by Smith in Washington is just one of four criminal cases confronting Trump.
Smith’s team says the men who wrote Constitution never intended for presidents to be above the law and that, in any event, the acts Trump is charged with — including participating in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Biden — aren’t in any way part of a president’s official duties.
Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records. That case played out during Trump’s presidency and involved a criminal investigation, but no charges.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who would have prevented the enforcement of the subpoena because of Trump’s responsibilities as president, still rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity and pointed to the text of the Constitution and how it was understood by the people who ratified it.
“The text of the Constitution … does not afford the President absolute immunity,” Thomas wrote in 2020.
The lack of apparent support on the court for the sort of blanket immunity Trump seeks has caused commentators to speculate about why the court has taken up the case in the first place.
Phillip Bobbitt, a constitutional scholar at Columbia University’s law school, said he worries about the delay, but sees value in a decision that amounts to “a definitive expression by the Supreme Court that we are a government of laws and not of men.”
The court also may be more concerned with how its decision could affect future presidencies, Harvard law school professor Jack Goldsmith wrote on the Lawfare blog.
But Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the court never should have taken the case because an ideologically diverse panel of the federal appeals court in Washington adequately addressed the issues.
“If it was going to take the case, it should have proceeded faster, because now, it will most likely prevent the trial from being completed before the election,” Roosevelt said. “Even Richard Nixon said that the American people deserve to know whether their president is a crook. The Supreme Court seems to disagree.”
The court has several options for deciding the case. The justices could reject Trump’s arguments and unfreeze the case so that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan can resume trial preparations, which she has indicated may last up to three months.
The court could end Smith’s prosecution by declaring for the first time that former presidents may not be prosecuted for official acts they took while in office.
It also might spell out when former presidents are shielded for prosecution and either declare that Trump’s alleged conduct easily crossed the line or return the case to Chutkan so that she can decide whether Trump should have to stand trial.
___
Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at .
There is something very interesting about all this that is not often discussed, especially by conservatives.
The right wing consistently makes the claim that "Jan 6th" was only about the events of that date . This is to give some sort of cover to Trump.
But that is hardly at all what is being discussed at the Supreme Court today.
It will be of interest if SCOTUS in some act of masochism ties itself and the other major powers into a knot of Gideon proportions.
Another observation: The Founders were not Gods, far from it.
good thing no one claims they were!
The elephant in the room here is that there has never in the history of this country been a need to even discus this argument until the most uniquely unqualified person to have ever entered politics was elected POTUS. Those who want Trump to return to that position clearly have the main goal of tearing down democracy and replacing it with the same types of government that dominate all the worst countries in the world. After it happens those same dumbasses will continue to solely blame their enemies for the irreversible damage that they themselves are responsible for.
They want us to become a shit hole country
Agree, hopefully Joe is not given the opportunity to complete the trip to shitholia.
... over my dead body.