Maggie’s SCOTUS ruling on Presidential immunity is out.

[david walter]

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

TRUMP v. UNITED STATES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 23–939. Argued April 25, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024

A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties.

The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts.

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.

 

[Ronws]

Why is HRC not in shackles? Why is the kenyan not swinging from a rope for treason?

Trump is indicted and prosecuted for saying what we are all saying out loud.

Hence, lawfare. And true, lawfare has gone on a long time. It was done to Nixon, for example.

As opposed to out and out assassination attempts, like Reagan. He wanted to get away from the Fed.

How dare I say that? Well, I made the mistake of reading a few books about the presidential detail of the secret service.

For example, for a while, the issued carry was Sig Sauer.

The details on the Beast, the armored presidential limo and the special driving schools they have to go to. Most of us spend our lives avoiding collision. The president's driver has to be willing to drive through obstructions to evade and escape.

Weeks in advance, agents swing into town to interview the crazies and see how they are doing. A few days before, manholes are welded shut.

About a week before, sniper teams arrive and set up near their hides. They are posted (more than one) at every location where the president gets out of the vehicle.

TLDR: no one is within 50 feet of the president who is not allowed to be there. So, how did John Hinkley Jr get that close to Reagan?

Fortunately, the agents next to the president were not in on the plan. Probably it was rushed.

Anyway, so, after that, Reagan left the Fed alone and lived to be a very old man.

 

[MinistryOfTruth]

It's an interesting take.

As of the last audit of the United States Code, without including the Federal Register, there were a minimum of 5999 felonies described. This was in 2020. With state code included, there are 116,700 felonies. Several pieces of US Code state you also are liable to follow the laws of other countries while inside the United States, exposing you to a global catalog of felonies.

Translation - there is no president the Judiciary couldn't absolutely destroy every day all day. And as such there needs to be some shield from an inappropriate branch-crossing behavior.

That said - this is going to get spicy. Once you banana republic, every orifice is filled with bannanas. We didn't need this to be explicitly stated because American politics were above the need to have it stated. Now that it is, expect terrible outcomes as nearly every president does whatever the fuck they want to everyone in their blast radius.

 

[7.62willdo]

Means nothing….still leaves it up to a judge(democrat) to decide if the act is official…..

 

[SmileMaker]

Maybe Canon will get off her prejudicial ass and we can finally have a trial in Florida.

 

[stefan73]

Another thing that the SCOTUS did that is good, because honestly everybody needs to be held accountable.

"In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs."

Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies - SCOTUSblog

This article was updated on June 28 at 3:46 p.m. In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-

www.scotusblog.com

 

[wvfarrier]

The issue with USSC rulings is that they NEVER give specifics. Its always half measures and ambiguity