SCOTUS: Trump has immunity

[Velar Fricative]

amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/07/01/politics/read-supreme-court-immunity-decision

Feel like this needs its own thread.

[karinothing]

I feel like this was passing the buck. I mean I do think the bigger question is what makes an official vs. unofficial act right? Or am I just off base here.

[Velar Fricative]

Jul 1, 2024 9:55:53 GMT -5 karinothing said:

I feel like this was passing the buck. I mean I do think the bigger question is what makes an official vs. unofficial act right? Or am I just off base here.

That’s exactly what I got from this. Now the lower court has to figure out what he did that was in his official capacity and what he did that wasn’t.

[fernweh]

Jul 1, 2024 9:55:53 GMT -5 karinothing said:

I feel like this was passing the buck. I mean I do think the bigger question is what makes an official vs. unofficial act right? Or am I just off base here.

This is where I am too. Of course he is going to claim that what he did constitutes an official act. So, where do we go from here…

[elleblue]

Jul 1, 2024 10:19:07 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Jul 1, 2024 9:55:53 GMT -5 karinothing said:

I feel like this was passing the buck. I mean I do think the bigger question is what makes an official vs. unofficial act right? Or am I just off base here.

That’s exactly what I got from this. Now the lower court has to figure out what he did that was in his official capacity and what he did that wasn’t.

Except for the evidentiary part. Under this, the Watergate tapes would have been inadmissible. Read Sotomayor's dissent. It is scathing (and frightening).

[elleblue]

Also, no more DOJ independence.

[silva]

I'm likely to stroke out by November.

It's up to the voters to save us. None of the battleground states can be close; it needs to be a landslide so Trump can challenge the results and end up at the SCOTUS because, like in 2000, they will give it to the Republican party.

[elleblue]

Jul 1, 2024 12:52:01 GMT -5 silva said:

I'm likely to stroke out by November.

It's up to the voters to save us. None of the battleground states can be close; it needs to be a landslide so Trump can challenge the results and end up at the SCOTUS because, like in 2000, they will give it to the Republican party.

SCOTUS has given Trump every reason to contest the election regardless.

Also, this thread title should be edited. They didn't grant him *some* immunity. They granted him immunity.

[bkseller13]

They should have waited until the 4th to announce the ruling so we could celebrate the birth and death of our democracy on the same day.

[sequins]

Jul 1, 2024 12:52:01 GMT -5 silva said:

I'm likely to stroke out by November.

It's up to the voters to save us. None of the battleground states can be close; it needs to be a landslide so Trump can challenge the results and end up at the SCOTUS because, like in 2000, they will give it to the Republican party.

Unfortunately, the battleground states WILL be close. Democrats need to be legally prepared to take this on and we cannot afford to be flat-footed like we were with Roe.

[ECB]

Jul 1, 2024 15:21:39 GMT -5 bkseller13 said:

They should have waited until the 4th to announce the ruling so we could celebrate the birth and death of our democracy on the same day.

i will be wearing black on Thursday.

[nsl]

I had to put my computer away for most of the day because I knew all I would do is doom scroll if I had it at hand. As it was I read a book about the Radium Girls, so not maybe the most excellent choice immediately after an SC ruling striking down regulatory agency authority.

This is bad. This is unbelievably bad. And as much as I know we are all exhausted by living in unprecedented times, I legitimately do not know how our country can survive beyond November. I don't think I've felt this way since election night 2016.

[shauni27]

Jul 1, 2024 18:53:19 GMT -5 nsl said:

I had to put my computer away for most of the day because I knew all I would do is doom scroll if I had it at hand. As it was I read a book about the Radium Girls, so not maybe the most excellent choice immediately after an SC ruling striking down regulatory agency authority.

This is bad. This is unbelievably bad. And as much as I know we are all exhausted by living in unprecedented times, I legitimately do not know how our country can survive beyond November. I don't think I've felt this way since election night 2016.

I liked your post in solidarity. It’s hard not to feel hopeless.

[spindle92]

Now the fucker is trying to get his conviction in the hush money trial overturned because of this ruling.

I am sick to my stomach and going to bed tonight in fear of what is to come.

[fernweh]

Jul 1, 2024 22:07:24 GMT -5 spindle92 said:

Now the fucker is trying to get his conviction in the hush money trial overturned because of this ruling.

I am sick to my stomach and going to bed tonight in fear of what is to come.

Do you have a link? I wouldn’t put it past him to try this, I’m sure he is. I’m trying to wrap my head around what argument they could be using to classify this as an official act as president when it happened during the 2016 election prior to him being president.
I briefly looked for an article and didn’t see one specific to this.

[spindle92]

Jul 1, 2024 23:59:11 GMT -5 fernweh said:

Jul 1, 2024 22:07:24 GMT -5 spindle92 said:

Now the fucker is trying to get his conviction in the hush money trial overturned because of this ruling.

I am sick to my stomach and going to bed tonight in fear of what is to come.

Do you have a link? I wouldn’t put it past him to try this, I’m sure he is. I’m trying to wrap my head around what argument they could be using to classify this as an official act as president when it happened during the 2016 election prior to him being president.
I briefly looked for an article and didn’t see one specific to this.

Sorry to forget the link:

​Trump team files letter saying they want to challenge hush money verdict based on Supreme Court immunity ruling

www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/trump-challenge-hush-money-verdict-immunity-supreme-court

[penguingrrl]

Heather Cox Richardson referred to this ruling as functionally a new amendment because of how drastically it changes the role of the executive in our system. Fucking terrifying.

[karinothing]

I am really trying to reserve judgement without a test because I think its all very unclear. I don't think the President having some level of immunity is a bad thing. There are many calls a president needs to make that I could be arrested for (especially in regard to war/conflict). There are probably a lot of calls the president would make during a time of national emergency that I also can't make. So theoretically, I think there should be some base level of immunity.

And while they say that official acts have immunity, they make no effort to truly define official acts. I imagine it would have some level of reasonability attached to it.

[konapoppy]

Jul 2, 2024 8:47:20 GMT -5 karinothing said:

I am really trying to reserve judgement without a test because I think its all very unclear. I don't think the President having some level of immunity is a bad thing. There are many calls a president needs to make that I could be arrested for (especially in regard to war/conflict). There are probably a lot of calls the president would make during a time of national emergency that I also can't make. So theoretically, I think there should be some base level of immunity.

And while they say that official acts have immunity, they make no effort to truly define official acts. I imagine it would have some level of reasonability attached to it.

I agree - they basically had to rule some level of immunity because of war crimes. Not saying they should or that war crimes are valid, but I imagine you would be able to prosecute every past president.

[UMaineTeach]

Biden better start thinking about what he wants to do that’s illegal to all, except the King of the United States of America.

Especially, if 45 becomes 47 and he has 6-8 weeks to do something.

I’m tired of going high when they go low.

[bkseller13]

Jul 2, 2024 8:47:20 GMT -5 karinothing said:

I am really trying to reserve judgement without a test because I think its all very unclear. I don't think the President having some level of immunity is a bad thing. There are many calls a president needs to make that I could be arrested for (especially in regard to war/conflict). There are probably a lot of calls the president would make during a time of national emergency that I also can't make. So theoretically, I think there should be some base level of immunity.

And while they say that official acts have immunity, they make no effort to truly define official acts. I imagine it would have some level of reasonability attached to it.

The only problem is that they're the final say on whether or not acts are considered official.  Do you really, in your heart of hearts, think that this court will rule that anything a Democratic President does is "official"?  I sure don't. This is a carte blanche for Trump and Trump alone.  Our Presidents managed to run this country for over 250 years, during wartime and peace without needing immunity.  The only one that has ever needed it (maybe besides Nixon, but let's get real, that wasn't official) was Trump.  This is a Trump get-out-of-jail-free card, nothing more.

[karinothing]

Well sentencing is officially paused until we get clarification. I don't think that this is anyway shape or form could ever fall under official acts. But we will see.

[penguingrrl]

Jul 2, 2024 11:13:43 GMT -5 karinothing said:

Well sentencing is officially paused until we get clarification. I don't think that this is anyway shape or form could ever fall under official acts. But we will see.

I’m so co fused by that because the action she was convicted of occurred before he took office. Is he now immune from any and all criminal behavior from birth as well?

[karinothing]

Jul 2, 2024 11:14:44 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Jul 2, 2024 11:13:43 GMT -5 karinothing said:

Well sentencing is officially paused until we get clarification. I don't think that this is anyway shape or form could ever fall under official acts. But we will see.

I’m so co fused by that because the action she was convicted of occurred before he took office. Is he now immune from any and all criminal behavior from birth as well?

The agreement regarding the payment was reached in 2017 and the payments were made in 2017. 

[penguingrrl]

Jul 2, 2024 11:16:38 GMT -5 karinothing said:

Jul 2, 2024 11:14:44 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I’m so co fused by that because the action she was convicted of occurred before he took office. Is he now immune from any and all criminal behavior from birth as well?

The agreement regarding the payment was reached in 2017 and the payments were made in 2017. 

Ugh, great.

[spindle92]

This is all so sickening and infuriating.

[jlt19]

Jul 2, 2024 11:16:38 GMT -5 karinothing said:

Jul 2, 2024 11:14:44 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I’m so co fused by that because the action she was convicted of occurred before he took office. Is he now immune from any and all criminal behavior from birth as well?

The agreement regarding the payment was reached in 2017 and the payments were made in 2017. 

So this covers states too? I guess I assumed it would only apply to federal offenses.

[karinothing]

Jul 2, 2024 14:22:06 GMT -5 jlt19 said:

Jul 2, 2024 11:16:38 GMT -5 karinothing said:

The agreement regarding the payment was reached in 2017 and the payments were made in 2017. 

So this covers states too? I guess I assumed it would only apply to federal offenses.

I think we don't know..

[akayf]

Jul 2, 2024 11:14:44 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Jul 2, 2024 11:13:43 GMT -5 karinothing said:

Well sentencing is officially paused until we get clarification. I don't think that this is anyway shape or form could ever fall under official acts. But we will see.

I’m so co fused by that because the action she was convicted of occurred before he took office. Is he now immune from any and all criminal behavior from birth as well?

If I am understanding his lawyers’ arguments correctly…

The immunity ruling said something about official acts cannot be used as evidence to prosecute/try private acts. His lawyers are claiming that some of the evidence included actions/things should be considered official acts. Therefore they think the verdict should be thrown out and he needs to be retried without the prosecution using that evidence.

[icedcoffee]

I've officially lost all hope. And before I was all "Bring all the cases against Trump" and now I just think it's all a waste of time and effort. He'll never suffer consequences for being a horrendous human being.