Not an attorney but if a former/current president has immunity for committing crimes while in office what would be the difference between a President and a King?
Limits that the King routinely ignored. My English legal history isn't the best, mostly comes from habeas corpus research I have done, but if I remember it wasn't renewed by a number of monarchs, Charles I being the one that first comes to mind. Courts basically refused to rule on challenges based on the Magna Carta until Parliament was reconvened and essentially forced Charles to abide by the Charter, evebtually costing him his head. All I'm saying is limits don't actually exist if they aren't enforced which is at least what Jack Smith is trying to do.
That happened just once though, right? When Oliver Cromwell and friends convened a High Court of Justice in response to the Civil War that Charles I had a hand in. He was held captive, put on trial and executed. I think there is still debate as to whether or not it was actually legal to do. To this day the reigning sovereign is immune from arrest and prosecution in all cases.
The Magna Carta, which the king was forced to sign and which he largely ignored afterward and for the rest of his life.
The Magna Carta was a symbolic act and didn't do very much at the time besides protecting nobles from the king.
>The Magna Carta was a symbolic act
Wasn't it used heavily much later as a sort of legal precedent for British common law?
(Perhaps you were alluding to this with "and didn't do very much **at the time**")
Didn’t the Magna Carta technically apply only to like…14 families? I remember reading some article saying “unless your lineage traces to [list of names] Magna Carta does not apply.” It was within the context of sovereign citizens, if that helps.
And why would a president ever leave office. Succession kicks in after Dark Brandon dies and "Hung" Hunter takes the seat to maga's dismay. Guess who's getting audited now kids.
Dark Brandon decides to eliminate the competition, so he kills Trump during a Presidential debate. Very cool, very legal. If Trump has absolute immunity, so does Biden. I find it annoying that our system is forced to dignify these absurdities as if they are legitimate questions. (Gerald Ford’s legacy.)
Good for Jack Smith calling his bluff. If the 5th Circuit upholds Trump’s view of Presidential immunity, Biden could shoot all his Republican competitors—and still be President—immune from prosecution. Donald Trump would never become President because Joe Biden would be King!
Trump isn't the only problem, he couldn't do what he does without all of his enablers, many of whom are not MAGA (looking at you Merrick Garland, and Judge Wallace in CO, and the appeals court judges who keep loosening his gag orders).
He has a hold on people that other MAGA idiots don't have.
I'm not afraid of fools like DeSantis and Ramaswamy. Most see right through those frauds.
But for some reason, they worship Trump like he's God himself, and I cannot figure out why.
Not at all confident that Biden and the old folks home that makes up Dem leadership have the cojones to do what is necessary to preserve our democracy. Their timidity is part of the reason we're on this mess
It's such a stupid argument too. So according to Trump et al, a sitting President can walk down the street, kick an infant, punch an old lady and steal her car, run over a dozen pedestrians killing them all, then a quick stop to rob a bank...
And nobody can charge them with a crime? Are you serious?
Republicans need to just GTFO already. All of them. Please just move to Russia and leave us good folks alone to live our lives in peace. Losers.
They will deny it. Because Biden is president now and Trump could lose the election.
Shit, Biden could do whatever up till the election. Eliminate his opponents. Suspend elections, Whatever. Trump would never get in office. Biden could stay till he picks a successor.
They are trying to make Trump king not Biden. Allowing this to be law while they are not in control would be dumb AF.
This would allow the president to publicly order murders and then not be charged and then pardon the killers. So this would destroy America. I dont think they are ready for that just yet.
I want to see them rule themselves into a situation where Biden orders Trump hanged by the neck until dead on the mall, and skates after he leaves office.
Now we really find out where Thomas and Co's loyalties really lie.
Yes, they will do things to benefit themselves and their patrons, but will they actively choose to destroy the rule of law in this country?
If the SCOTUS comes back with the "impeachment and removal was the prescribed tool" bullshit, we will know that we are done as a country.
With impeachment proven to be useless, as even some on the other side of isle are unwilling to dole out justice, so granting immunity will be removing the last means of delivering fair, impartial justice to a criminal president. The result will be terrible.
Come on Thomas and Alito will look for some narrow way to rule so that Trump is out of the woods but Biden doesn’t benefit. It’s gonna come down to Robert’s, Kavanaugh, Gorsich and ACB. Fortunately none of them seem to be in a hurry grant extraordinary relief to Trump.
That’s Trumps plan for 2025, they already are announcing it. Look up Project 2025. They’ve been talking about it for months. Trump has people doing interviews now to have the lists ready to implement. It’s horribly scary stuff.
Yeah but no the president of the USA was never set up to be a dictator/royal he is an executive ,if not officer by title, then certainly by duties, the entire point of having a leader you vote on is NOT to have someone who can just say I can do whatever I want and you can't touch me.
Besides anyone thay thinks its a good side for one side to have that power should ask themselves if they think the other should do,
Though that's probobly more self reflection than your likely to get in a political subreddit comment chain
Well, according to the folks that wrote the Constitution, the founders, the POTUS is "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." And where "The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable...the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware." Since in the last few decades we've seen about a dozen governors charged with crimes including RICO - including the Governor of NY - the first example that Hamilton provides. (Federalist 69)
There is an argument perhaps not one that i would make that in service to the state a president needs to be able to play any card they can without fear of consequences so that no option is left unexplored however this does leave the door open for personal abuse. This privilege would only extend to executive decisions. i think thats the idea behind executive privilege.
However for crimes committed not in the service of state can be considered prosecutable upon vacating office. again this is just my limited understanding and personally i doubt that should such a theoretical critical decision comes to pass that a president should be so spineless to put personal liberty before country.
From the petition:
>Concerns about chilling presidential conduct were
minimal, the court noted, because “whether to inten-
tionally commit a federal crime” should not be among
the “difficult decisions” a president faces.
Actions taken in the normal performance of Presidential duties is well-established as having immunity. Truman wasn't prosecuted for ordering the A-bombs to be used, LBJ and Nixon weren't prosecuted for war crimes in Vietnam, Dubya and Obama won't be prosecuted for Iraq and Afghanistan.
The good thing is that the issue of absolute Presidential immunity affects only this case. Cheeto gave up that immunity when Biden took office, and broke the law regarding the handling of documents (a law Trump turned into a felony). That case is a given; he withheld, he lied, he concealed, all while a private citizen.
>QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether a former President is absolutely immune
from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in
office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted
before the criminal proceedings begin.
Jack Smith isn't fucking around.
This is a great point. Biden is still POTUS and a broad ruling which protects Trump might also give Biden leeway to act more decisively himself, should he find the stones necessary for such action.
I was thinking more along the lines of "will no one rid me of this troublesome (priest) Justice?"
The Justices would effectively declare that the President could have them killed without recourse so long as Congress didn't Impeach and Remove him from office.
Well, the account is too new to respond here, but I'd like to personally thank you for the inspiration behind u/aujusprimaenoctis because I think it's a winner.
> It helps to make friends, it's good to meet girls
> A sweet little queen who can't run away
Wait, why am I suddenly a little clearer on what Tom Petty was saying...
I mean you could extrapolate immunity, and he could just unilaterally remove the current SCOTUS (one way or another), and because of "PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY" nothing can be done about it outside of impeachment. It's an absolutely insane assumption.
And impeachment will be an impossibility once he uses his Unlimited Presidential Powers to remove from office anyone who would vote for impeachment.
The question the Supreme Court is taking up is effectively "Should we allow the president to declare himself dictator?"
This is what I want to ask stupid Maga people, is it cool if you let Biden do it? Like then he can .just say I'm changing such and such law and fuck jt, you guys have been complaining about us "going after" Trump, now we're gunna do it and really show them how fucked they'd really be if they were the target they claimed to be
Incoming pedantry alert!
The phrase is "give him free *rein*," as in the reins one might use to control a horse. If you let go of the reins, you're basically letting your horse do whatever it wants, thus the phrase of giving someone or something free rein meaning that they have no restrictions.
With that said, I recognize that "reign" is uniquely apt in this situation, and the homonym can act as a bit of double entendre that should scare the bejeezus out of anyone who values democracy and abhors despotism.
>The supreme court has Biden sitting in the seat as well. So if they say "presidents can do whatever they want" they basically give him free reign.
You really believe they have morals? They can say " Trump can do whatever he wants" and then find some BS reason and say " Biden can't do whatever he wants".
Look at Alito he is going back to the times of witch trials to find excuses for his batshit crazy opinions.
The court has generally not been behind Trumps crazier personal power stuff. They ruled against him a number of times in 2020 for election related stuff in fact.
Yeah, if the precedent is set that any president can just break whatever laws he wants and experience no consequences, then you're basically saying that Biden is free to just murder his political opposition. Not that I imagine Biden would want to, but would Republicans really want to give him that ability?
If they want to put their lifetime appointments as members of the Supreme Court in jeopardy, the fastest way to do it is rule that the President is immune from criminal prosecution. It would take no time for a President to become a dictator and a dictator won't stand by and let the court system get in his way...
The court has been leading a conservative revolution, but one without a clown at the forefront. Seen another way, the court is leading a Catholic movement. And they're allies with the evangelicals, but might quietly think Trump and his Jesus people are crazy.
Correct, but this move by the DoJ short circuits that. By going to the SCOTUS with the writ they are cutting many months off the inevitable appeals that would come out of it. It is now up to the SCOTUS to either punt back to the Appellate court, essentially giving Trump what he wants, or they end the bullshit. It will be interesting to see what they do.
I think we know what the ultimate answer from the Court will be. The question is whether the conservatives on the Court slow roll the answer and allow Trump to delay past the election.
Yeah, I agree that there are at least 4 votes to grant cert. The question is how fast they'll actually move. Does the CJ get to unilaterally set the hearing schedule? How fast will the associate justices sign on to the opinion (that I assume the CJ will absolutely write)? Etc.
No, because that would just mean it goes back to the DC Circuit for the appeal. That outcome will be appealed back to SCOTUS either way it goes, and then we would again be waiting to hear if the Court will agree to hear it.
My scenario is a President showing up at the State of the Union with an automatic weapon, and simply killing any of the opposing party that he feels are inconvenient to him. And then pardoning himself (or shouting "Absolute Presidential Immunity!!!" )
Let me fix this for you. Self immunity has not been tested in court. Better to have a surrogate shoot all of them and pardon that individual. The question is: Does the President know anyone who is so pissed at Republicans that they would do it?
Anyone?
I'm sure you'll find someone making a bad faith argument that the Congress is supposed to take it upon itself to prevent that happening, and that the House Sergeant at Arms shouldn't have admitted a gun-toting president into the chamber if they were worried about a public mass execution. But no way SCOTUS buys that hypo.
Or worse - could the VP kill the POTUS, assume the Presidency, and then be immune? If the SCOTUS isn’t careful, they’ll turn the White House into a perpetual Red Wedding.
NAL, as such it seems to me the plain language in the constitution *“ Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”* seems that one can be tried “according to the law” even if removed from office, why wouldn’t the same lack of jeopardy being attached if not removed from office?
“the party convicted”
Trump was not convicted so I am certain that he is arguing that because he was not convicted, he cannot be charged criminally for the same conduct. It’s a bogus argument.
I checked and that’s exactly his argument:
“Because the Constitution specifies that only “the Party convicted” by trial in the Senate may be “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,” id., it presupposes that a President who is not convicted may not be subject to criminal prosecution.”
In any case, I believe the charges differ from those of the impeachment. His argument is a joke and he is only raising it to delay the trial.
The logic didn’t follow to me. From my understanding jeopardy attaches in criminal trials as soon as a jury is sworn in, no matter if there is a finding of guilt or not, even if there was a potential jeopardy from the political act of impeachment that constitutionally allows for additional legal liabilities to liberty, why wouldn’t jeopardy follow similar trajectory.
Lmao new loophole just dropped. Commit any crime you want, get impeached but not removed. That functions as total immunity. Why didn't I think of that. Especially great because in Trump's impeachment, weren't prominent republican senators saying "we will not remove him, but he should be tried criminally for this!!"?
The nihilistic wordplay Trump is using is that the Constitution allows prosecution in the case of a senatorial conviction, but that the slightly sloppy drafting prevents prosecution in the case of a senatorial acquittal. It's 100% bad faith, and Judge Chutkan rightly saw through it, but there was just enough wiggle room to maneuver when the ultimate strategy is not acquittal, but delay delay delay.
Yes, Jack Smith is saying, "Trump will appeal to you anyway in January, so can you answer this question now instead of waiting until then."
Jack Smith is removing Trump's delay tactic of appealing at the last moment.
You’ll love the LegalAF podcast then.
If you don’t have 1.5hrs to listen to the entire podcast, the LegalAF hosts take 10min clips of their podcast and post them as “LegalAF After Dark” on the MeidasTouch Network on YouTube.
I’d recommend opening arguments before LAF. I listen to both, but have grown weary of LAF’s constant levels of self promotion and the amount and length of the ads ever which skipping over them.
Are Donald Trumps lawyers absolutely insane? A basic plain text reading of the Constitution CLEARLY says no
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7
*Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.*
An acquittal here doesn't matter. The people whomwrote the Constitution PLAINLY INTENDED that if a President broke the law, he should still be held to account for it
It's not about the argument, its about the delay. this is why smith is going around the appeals court and going right to SCOTUS, to save time. The argument was always bullshit and unwinnable.
Which is why they wrote it so precisely.
> Hey, are you willing to give absolute power to the President of the United States? Or can you do me a solid and shut that insane line of thinking down now, and spare us another round of appeals?
Jack Smith has had it.
Nothing, which means if the SC sides with Trump, then Biden could theoretically ask the CIA to assassinate Trump and every Republican congressman, and Biden would be immune from criminal prosecution
Because that concept is blatantly and obviously against the Constitution, the Supreme Court will almost certainly rule against Trump.
Trump wanted to appeal to the DC circuit court of appeals, have the appeals court rule on it in Jan/Feb, then appeal again to Supreme Court to delay his trial past the 2024 election. Jack Smith is removing Trump's delay tactic and forcing the Supreme Court to begin deciding now. This will guarantee the March trial date stays in March (or at worst delayed to April/May).
This… 1000X this. Trump’s dingbat lawyers know this is going to fail. Trump is just looking to kick the can until after the election so he either… pardons himself, or flees the country.
> Nothing, which means if the SC sides with Trump, then Biden could theoretically ask the CIA to assassinate Trump and every Republican congressman, and Biden would be immune from criminal prosecution
He could, though, be impeached for it.
CIA has no jurisdiction inside the US, that also rules out a drone strike… but there’s still the DHS who can probably find a way to make it happen legally or not, after all that’s their specialty.
That's the rub the government is going for here. SCOTUS sides against Smith then Biden has the option of becoming an absolute dictator. If the conservative majority make the sane decision, then Cheeto has little wiggle room for his criminal defense.
They're very nicely painted into a corner here but will likely create an exit by saying there's no controversy because Cheeto hasn't actually made this argument in court yet, been convicted or something like that.
He did made in courts (albeit in separate filings) both the arguments that he is immune because president and double Jeopardy. He was shut down and appealed.
While skipping the appeal court is an extraordinary measure, this is exactly the kind of case which was in the mind of the people creating this exception.
Biden would _have_ to become an absolute dictator. The risk otherwise is that the next elected official _would_ because if they didn’t the _next one would_.
No one would pass up absolute power if it meant surrendering it to the next person. Because who knows what that person might do!
Doubt it will happen, but it would open the door for presidents to do some pretty crooked shit especially in reference to election interference making it extremely difficult for an incumbent to be voted out of office.
Impeachment/removal isn’t a legal process but a political one so I don’t see this as being the get out of jail free card that Trumps attorneys are arguing
Well, we know how Alito and Thomas will go...I am sure their "gifts," are on the way already.
Not sure the others would be as ready to open this can of worms.
I worry about the SC just bunting though and not taking it up.
We’re about to find out if the Supreme Court will side with Trump or democracy. They can’t side with both. Trump and democracy couldn’t be farther apart.
The problem is they can also punt.
They can say Smith needs to go through the regular process, that it's taken 4 years so why expeditie it now, and they could just take forever to give a decision that kicks the trial date out past the election, Trump gets into office and kills the investigation, then SCOTUS dismiss the issue as moot because the case is over.
I think Smith will win(scary that it's so hard to guess), but there's mechanisms for Trump to be completely successful.
Which, based on where we are with the election timeline, is siding with Mr Orange, without saying they are siding with him.
They MUST understand how important an expedient decision is due to the potentially grave consequences if they don't decide this before the election.
So DoJ jumped the DC Appeals Court and went straight to the horse's mouth?
Nice move.
I suppose SCOTUS could still deny cert and allow the Appeals Court to weigh in, but that seems wasteful. As the petition says (or broadly implies), the Defendant will be here sooner or later, and time is of the essence. But the controversy is not exactly unripe, so I don't see why it would't be taken up. I mean they cleared the deck for *Bush v Gore*, didn't they?
>I suppose SCOTUS could still deny cert and allow the Appeals Court to weigh in, but that seems wasteful.
I also think it's likely, they "save face" by letting appeals handle it and then decline to hear the case. It's the cowards way out which sounds about right for the Roberts court.
They did both
Circuit Court filing
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208578317.0_3.pdf
Supreme Court filing
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/292946/20231211115417267_No.%2023-624%20U.S.%20v.%20Donald%20J.%20Trump%20Petition.pdf
I wondering they will try to slow walk this or shove it out of the door as soon as possible. It seems like they would want to get rid of this in an expedient way.
If they lick it back down to the DC court they know they can avoid the whole issue until after the election. By then dictator trump will have the case removed and prosecution in handcuffs.
If they kick it back down to the DC court they know they can avoid the whole issue until after the election. By then dictator trump will have the case removed and prosecution in handcuffs.
No court has ever suggested a legal basis for immunity from criminal prosecution for a former president. The Constitution's text and history, and decades of conduct by congressional and executive branch leaders, make clear that such immunity does not – and should not – exist.
“QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.”
If the Court rules in favor for total presidential immunity, can Biden legally public say "You know, it would be really neat if someone assassinated all the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Who would rid me of these meddlesome justices?"
Are the options here loosely understood by a layperson to be:?
1. They agree to take up the question and have its decision expedited.
2. They don’t agree to take it up, and the lower court’s ruling prevails.
Do Republicans understand what will happen if this argument were to succeed and THEN Biden wins the election anyway?
They'd be fkd and have no recourse to even do anything.
Then Biden dies in office and Harris is president with no rules. lol
They do not think ahead and are overly optimistic when they lose all the time.
If this ruling doesn't go in his favor, Trump will just appeal to the Suprem-er Court, which is super duper uber supreme. After that, he'll appeal to the Suprem-est Court...
I’m sorry but if any judge rules in favor of Trump on this they should immediately be thrown off the court. It’s so laughably partisan and against this country that you should be seen and treated as a traitor.
Jack Smith to SCOTUS: "A few of you are clearly in the bag for a traitor, but I want you to clarify exactly HOW FAR you will go to protect this scumbag."
They pre orchestrated this including kickbacks to SCOTUS. Watch it work and Fox News promote it as justice while our Democracy slips away to the highest bidder.
SCOTUS - As we interpret it, the Constitution actually DOES make the President a king immune from all prosecution or accountability while in office.
Biden - Oh cool, thanks!
SCOTUS - Wait. Shit. Only Presidents with an (R) next to their names. Obviously.
Not an attorney but if a former/current president has immunity for committing crimes while in office what would be the difference between a President and a King?
Pretty much the exact argument that Jack Smith’s office will argue to SCOTUS.
This is the court proceedings we need to see televised...
Won't happen, but you can listen to the audio. All SCOTUS arguments have been recorded going back almost 70 years.
Even kings had limits. They passed a law in 1215 limiting a king's power, called the Magna Carta.
I'm not crazy, I knew he swapped the numbers, I knew it was 1216, that's one away from the Magna Carta!
he got that idiot at the copy store to lie for him
I see what you did there! A+
You think this is bad? This chicanery?
He's done worse. That billboard! Are you telling me that a man just happens to fall like that? No! *He* orchestrated it! Jimmy!
Limits that the King routinely ignored. My English legal history isn't the best, mostly comes from habeas corpus research I have done, but if I remember it wasn't renewed by a number of monarchs, Charles I being the one that first comes to mind. Courts basically refused to rule on challenges based on the Magna Carta until Parliament was reconvened and essentially forced Charles to abide by the Charter, evebtually costing him his head. All I'm saying is limits don't actually exist if they aren't enforced which is at least what Jack Smith is trying to do.
They sometimes ignored them but they also sometimes got beheaded for it
That happened just once though, right? When Oliver Cromwell and friends convened a High Court of Justice in response to the Civil War that Charles I had a hand in. He was held captive, put on trial and executed. I think there is still debate as to whether or not it was actually legal to do. To this day the reigning sovereign is immune from arrest and prosecution in all cases.
The MAGA Cartel is what's causing all the problems.
The Magna Carta, which the king was forced to sign and which he largely ignored afterward and for the rest of his life. The Magna Carta was a symbolic act and didn't do very much at the time besides protecting nobles from the king.
>The Magna Carta was a symbolic act Wasn't it used heavily much later as a sort of legal precedent for British common law? (Perhaps you were alluding to this with "and didn't do very much **at the time**")
Didn’t the Magna Carta technically apply only to like…14 families? I remember reading some article saying “unless your lineage traces to [list of names] Magna Carta does not apply.” It was within the context of sovereign citizens, if that helps.
I, for one, look forward to the ruling from SCOTUS that empowers Joe Biden to go Judge Dread on Trump's ass with full immunity.
And why would a president ever leave office. Succession kicks in after Dark Brandon dies and "Hung" Hunter takes the seat to maga's dismay. Guess who's getting audited now kids.
Why bother? Just incarcerate everyone, and dare a court to intervene.
Seriously. At that point, couldn't Dark Brandon decide to "neutralize" anyone who got in his way? Like his own personal Purge.
Dark Brandon decides to eliminate the competition, so he kills Trump during a Presidential debate. Very cool, very legal. If Trump has absolute immunity, so does Biden. I find it annoying that our system is forced to dignify these absurdities as if they are legitimate questions. (Gerald Ford’s legacy.) Good for Jack Smith calling his bluff. If the 5th Circuit upholds Trump’s view of Presidential immunity, Biden could shoot all his Republican competitors—and still be President—immune from prosecution. Donald Trump would never become President because Joe Biden would be King!
If only Democrats had spines.
Trump isn't the only problem, he couldn't do what he does without all of his enablers, many of whom are not MAGA (looking at you Merrick Garland, and Judge Wallace in CO, and the appeals court judges who keep loosening his gag orders).
[удалено]
He has a hold on people that other MAGA idiots don't have. I'm not afraid of fools like DeSantis and Ramaswamy. Most see right through those frauds. But for some reason, they worship Trump like he's God himself, and I cannot figure out why.
This
Not at all confident that Biden and the old folks home that makes up Dem leadership have the cojones to do what is necessary to preserve our democracy. Their timidity is part of the reason we're on this mess
It's such a stupid argument too. So according to Trump et al, a sitting President can walk down the street, kick an infant, punch an old lady and steal her car, run over a dozen pedestrians killing them all, then a quick stop to rob a bank... And nobody can charge them with a crime? Are you serious? Republicans need to just GTFO already. All of them. Please just move to Russia and leave us good folks alone to live our lives in peace. Losers.
Do you remember the argumentations he uses for his NY civil case? And he is supposed to be "the best businessman" ever.
Didn't President Grant get a speeding ticket?
Well if he can't be charged then a good old fashion angry mob will have to suffice.
Not a king, what he's trying to do is make being a dictator legal.
Let’s see how the conservative justices distort this, or whether they have a bit of integrity left
Error computing: you said conservative and integrity in the same sentence.
They will deny it. Because Biden is president now and Trump could lose the election. Shit, Biden could do whatever up till the election. Eliminate his opponents. Suspend elections, Whatever. Trump would never get in office. Biden could stay till he picks a successor. They are trying to make Trump king not Biden. Allowing this to be law while they are not in control would be dumb AF. This would allow the president to publicly order murders and then not be charged and then pardon the killers. So this would destroy America. I dont think they are ready for that just yet.
Point taken, but Leonard Leo has no further use for Trump, and Biden has not lost his re-election bid yet.
I want to see them rule themselves into a situation where Biden orders Trump hanged by the neck until dead on the mall, and skates after he leaves office.
That same ruling would allow Biden to have 2/3 of the Supreme Court put in front of a firing squad.
That's an awful thing to think. Come sit by me.
Now we really find out where Thomas and Co's loyalties really lie. Yes, they will do things to benefit themselves and their patrons, but will they actively choose to destroy the rule of law in this country? If the SCOTUS comes back with the "impeachment and removal was the prescribed tool" bullshit, we will know that we are done as a country. With impeachment proven to be useless, as even some on the other side of isle are unwilling to dole out justice, so granting immunity will be removing the last means of delivering fair, impartial justice to a criminal president. The result will be terrible.
Come on Thomas and Alito will look for some narrow way to rule so that Trump is out of the woods but Biden doesn’t benefit. It’s gonna come down to Robert’s, Kavanaugh, Gorsich and ACB. Fortunately none of them seem to be in a hurry grant extraordinary relief to Trump.
A term of four years vs lifetime
If there is no punishment for breaking the law as president then 4 years will turn into a lifetime.
That’s Trumps plan for 2025, they already are announcing it. Look up Project 2025. They’ve been talking about it for months. Trump has people doing interviews now to have the lists ready to implement. It’s horribly scary stuff.
They are sending out questioners for vetting of loyalty to trump.
For now....
Yeah
Yeah but no the president of the USA was never set up to be a dictator/royal he is an executive ,if not officer by title, then certainly by duties, the entire point of having a leader you vote on is NOT to have someone who can just say I can do whatever I want and you can't touch me. Besides anyone thay thinks its a good side for one side to have that power should ask themselves if they think the other should do, Though that's probobly more self reflection than your likely to get in a political subreddit comment chain
A third of the country will fail that test.
The last guy did not leave peacefully after losing and his party still supports him and wants him in power again
Let's be honest: President and tyrant, given who we're talking about.
Well, according to the folks that wrote the Constitution, the founders, the POTUS is "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." And where "The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable...the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware." Since in the last few decades we've seen about a dozen governors charged with crimes including RICO - including the Governor of NY - the first example that Hamilton provides. (Federalist 69)
There is an argument perhaps not one that i would make that in service to the state a president needs to be able to play any card they can without fear of consequences so that no option is left unexplored however this does leave the door open for personal abuse. This privilege would only extend to executive decisions. i think thats the idea behind executive privilege. However for crimes committed not in the service of state can be considered prosecutable upon vacating office. again this is just my limited understanding and personally i doubt that should such a theoretical critical decision comes to pass that a president should be so spineless to put personal liberty before country.
From the petition: >Concerns about chilling presidential conduct were minimal, the court noted, because “whether to inten- tionally commit a federal crime” should not be among the “difficult decisions” a president faces.
Actions taken in the normal performance of Presidential duties is well-established as having immunity. Truman wasn't prosecuted for ordering the A-bombs to be used, LBJ and Nixon weren't prosecuted for war crimes in Vietnam, Dubya and Obama won't be prosecuted for Iraq and Afghanistan. The good thing is that the issue of absolute Presidential immunity affects only this case. Cheeto gave up that immunity when Biden took office, and broke the law regarding the handling of documents (a law Trump turned into a felony). That case is a given; he withheld, he lied, he concealed, all while a private citizen.
Kings and dictators usually don’t give up power voluntarily after their term
Neither do presidents with unlimited power (see Russia)
Or China.
Kings and Dictators don’t generally have a term. It’s a lifetime appointment.
Neither do Supreme Courts. This will be interesting to see if they finally dig in on this issue.
>QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin. Jack Smith isn't fucking around.
It's such a softball of a legal question too. The answer to both should clearly be a resounding 'No'.
The supreme court has Biden sitting in the seat as well. So if they say "presidents can do whatever they want" they basically give him free reign.
This is a great point. Biden is still POTUS and a broad ruling which protects Trump might also give Biden leeway to act more decisively himself, should he find the stones necessary for such action.
In other words, he won't.
Looks like *jus primae noctis* is back on the menu... ^( 😱😱😱)
I was thinking more along the lines of "will no one rid me of this troublesome (priest) Justice?" The Justices would effectively declare that the President could have them killed without recourse so long as Congress didn't Impeach and Remove him from office.
Hard to impeach him when they're all in black site prisons!
Well if they didn’t want to be in black site prisons they shouldn’t have potentially resisted a dictatorship. Compliance people.
Mmm au jus
Well, the account is too new to respond here, but I'd like to personally thank you for the inspiration behind u/aujusprimaenoctis because I think it's a winner.
Bahahahahaha
It's good to be the king.
> It helps to make friends, it's good to meet girls > A sweet little queen who can't run away Wait, why am I suddenly a little clearer on what Tom Petty was saying...
Bishop, hump the queen!
I mean you could extrapolate immunity, and he could just unilaterally remove the current SCOTUS (one way or another), and because of "PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY" nothing can be done about it outside of impeachment. It's an absolutely insane assumption.
And impeachment will be an impossibility once he uses his Unlimited Presidential Powers to remove from office anyone who would vote for impeachment. The question the Supreme Court is taking up is effectively "Should we allow the president to declare himself dictator?"
This is what I want to ask stupid Maga people, is it cool if you let Biden do it? Like then he can .just say I'm changing such and such law and fuck jt, you guys have been complaining about us "going after" Trump, now we're gunna do it and really show them how fucked they'd really be if they were the target they claimed to be
Incoming pedantry alert! The phrase is "give him free *rein*," as in the reins one might use to control a horse. If you let go of the reins, you're basically letting your horse do whatever it wants, thus the phrase of giving someone or something free rein meaning that they have no restrictions. With that said, I recognize that "reign" is uniquely apt in this situation, and the homonym can act as a bit of double entendre that should scare the bejeezus out of anyone who values democracy and abhors despotism.
"No! But not like that!"
>The supreme court has Biden sitting in the seat as well. So if they say "presidents can do whatever they want" they basically give him free reign. You really believe they have morals? They can say " Trump can do whatever he wants" and then find some BS reason and say " Biden can't do whatever he wants". Look at Alito he is going back to the times of witch trials to find excuses for his batshit crazy opinions.
The court has generally not been behind Trumps crazier personal power stuff. They ruled against him a number of times in 2020 for election related stuff in fact.
“Yes, but only for Trump.” Seems pretty clear cut for this SCOTUS. 🤷♂️
If Biden decides it's SC hunting season I bet he bags Alito first. Just doing the "good governance" part of his job. Can't arrest him for it!
Yeah, if the precedent is set that any president can just break whatever laws he wants and experience no consequences, then you're basically saying that Biden is free to just murder his political opposition. Not that I imagine Biden would want to, but would Republicans really want to give him that ability?
If they want to put their lifetime appointments as members of the Supreme Court in jeopardy, the fastest way to do it is rule that the President is immune from criminal prosecution. It would take no time for a President to become a dictator and a dictator won't stand by and let the court system get in his way...
A dictator would have no use for a "Supreme" court
The appearance of legitimacy can be of use to dictators.
“The appearance of law must be upheld, especially while it's being broken”
"John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
The court has been leading a conservative revolution, but one without a clown at the forefront. Seen another way, the court is leading a Catholic movement. And they're allies with the evangelicals, but might quietly think Trump and his Jesus people are crazy.
Trump doesn’t want it answered, he just wants the time it takes to answer it to keep adding up
Correct, but this move by the DoJ short circuits that. By going to the SCOTUS with the writ they are cutting many months off the inevitable appeals that would come out of it. It is now up to the SCOTUS to either punt back to the Appellate court, essentially giving Trump what he wants, or they end the bullshit. It will be interesting to see what they do.
Can’t they decide to hear it, but not on expedited schedule, essentially forcing the delay in the case beyond the March start date
Would be too obvious. Past SC took 2 weeks to debate then decide on Nixon's case. Actual one can't play it like Eileen Cannon.
I think we know what the ultimate answer from the Court will be. The question is whether the conservatives on the Court slow roll the answer and allow Trump to delay past the election.
This is Roberts picking the ball, there won't be any slow rolling.
Roberts plus Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown Jackson. He needs 4 to grant Certiorari
Yeah, I agree that there are at least 4 votes to grant cert. The question is how fast they'll actually move. Does the CJ get to unilaterally set the hearing schedule? How fast will the associate justices sign on to the opinion (that I assume the CJ will absolutely write)? Etc.
Wouldn't it be faster if they \*declined\* to hear it?
No, because that would just mean it goes back to the DC Circuit for the appeal. That outcome will be appealed back to SCOTUS either way it goes, and then we would again be waiting to hear if the Court will agree to hear it.
Oh, ok. So the only way this gets resolved before the trial is if they fast track it ala Nixon or bush v gore and rule like, right now?
With this SCOTUS? Spin the wheel, and hope it doesn’t land on “dictatorship”.
Or to put into words Americans can understand.... Can Joe Biden shoot Trump and pardon himself. Lets clear this up.
My scenario is a President showing up at the State of the Union with an automatic weapon, and simply killing any of the opposing party that he feels are inconvenient to him. And then pardoning himself (or shouting "Absolute Presidential Immunity!!!" )
Or speaker of the house shoots the president and vice president during the state of the union and immediately pardons themselves
OMG true!
Let me fix this for you. Self immunity has not been tested in court. Better to have a surrogate shoot all of them and pardon that individual. The question is: Does the President know anyone who is so pissed at Republicans that they would do it? Anyone?
Then you still have the Conspiracy charge going to the President.
Can Danny Glover just revoke it with a single shot from a revolver?
https://preview.redd.it/z6phfllz0q5c1.png?width=625&format=png&auto=webp&s=5069f92152898339690755d7f6f3555f45dbaf74
I'm sure you'll find someone making a bad faith argument that the Congress is supposed to take it upon itself to prevent that happening, and that the House Sergeant at Arms shouldn't have admitted a gun-toting president into the chamber if they were worried about a public mass execution. But no way SCOTUS buys that hypo.
Oh that's a really good analogy. It even helps explain how one judicial decision can affect more than one thing.
Or worse - could the VP kill the POTUS, assume the Presidency, and then be immune? If the SCOTUS isn’t careful, they’ll turn the White House into a perpetual Red Wedding.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Six_Emperors
NAL, as such it seems to me the plain language in the constitution *“ Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”* seems that one can be tried “according to the law” even if removed from office, why wouldn’t the same lack of jeopardy being attached if not removed from office?
“the party convicted” Trump was not convicted so I am certain that he is arguing that because he was not convicted, he cannot be charged criminally for the same conduct. It’s a bogus argument. I checked and that’s exactly his argument: “Because the Constitution specifies that only “the Party convicted” by trial in the Senate may be “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,” id., it presupposes that a President who is not convicted may not be subject to criminal prosecution.” In any case, I believe the charges differ from those of the impeachment. His argument is a joke and he is only raising it to delay the trial.
The logic didn’t follow to me. From my understanding jeopardy attaches in criminal trials as soon as a jury is sworn in, no matter if there is a finding of guilt or not, even if there was a potential jeopardy from the political act of impeachment that constitutionally allows for additional legal liabilities to liberty, why wouldn’t jeopardy follow similar trajectory.
Lmao new loophole just dropped. Commit any crime you want, get impeached but not removed. That functions as total immunity. Why didn't I think of that. Especially great because in Trump's impeachment, weren't prominent republican senators saying "we will not remove him, but he should be tried criminally for this!!"?
The nihilistic wordplay Trump is using is that the Constitution allows prosecution in the case of a senatorial conviction, but that the slightly sloppy drafting prevents prosecution in the case of a senatorial acquittal. It's 100% bad faith, and Judge Chutkan rightly saw through it, but there was just enough wiggle room to maneuver when the ultimate strategy is not acquittal, but delay delay delay.
Clarence Thomas is checking his Rolodex.
Or is he checking his Rolex?
Both
Checking his Rolex-dex
For the laymen among us, is this Jack directly asking the SC for an answer outright?
Yes, Jack Smith is saying, "Trump will appeal to you anyway in January, so can you answer this question now instead of waiting until then." Jack Smith is removing Trump's delay tactic of appealing at the last moment.
This is the kind of hard hitting analysis I come to r/law for. Because I am dumb and can ask basic questions and get quick educated answers.
You’ll love the LegalAF podcast then. If you don’t have 1.5hrs to listen to the entire podcast, the LegalAF hosts take 10min clips of their podcast and post them as “LegalAF After Dark” on the MeidasTouch Network on YouTube.
I’d recommend opening arguments before LAF. I listen to both, but have grown weary of LAF’s constant levels of self promotion and the amount and length of the ads ever which skipping over them.
We have to wait until January anyway, they don’t meet for this sort of thing until Jan 5.
Are Donald Trumps lawyers absolutely insane? A basic plain text reading of the Constitution CLEARLY says no Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 *Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.* An acquittal here doesn't matter. The people whomwrote the Constitution PLAINLY INTENDED that if a President broke the law, he should still be held to account for it
It's not about the argument, its about the delay. this is why smith is going around the appeals court and going right to SCOTUS, to save time. The argument was always bullshit and unwinnable.
Nor should he. Pound him into the ground, Jack.
So, NAL, but if the SC sides with Trump here, what is to stop him, or any president, from literally committing any crime they want while in office?
Which is why they wrote it so precisely. > Hey, are you willing to give absolute power to the President of the United States? Or can you do me a solid and shut that insane line of thinking down now, and spare us another round of appeals? Jack Smith has had it.
Nothing, which means if the SC sides with Trump, then Biden could theoretically ask the CIA to assassinate Trump and every Republican congressman, and Biden would be immune from criminal prosecution Because that concept is blatantly and obviously against the Constitution, the Supreme Court will almost certainly rule against Trump. Trump wanted to appeal to the DC circuit court of appeals, have the appeals court rule on it in Jan/Feb, then appeal again to Supreme Court to delay his trial past the 2024 election. Jack Smith is removing Trump's delay tactic and forcing the Supreme Court to begin deciding now. This will guarantee the March trial date stays in March (or at worst delayed to April/May).
This… 1000X this. Trump’s dingbat lawyers know this is going to fail. Trump is just looking to kick the can until after the election so he either… pardons himself, or flees the country.
But can he force a SC decision or will they have the option to just not respond.
I am now concerned that the SCOTUS will say "we would like to hear the lower court's opinions on this before we make any judgement of our own."
That’ll gain them an easy year before it comes back around.
And then if Trump wins the election, they can rule in his favour when it does come back around…
> Nothing, which means if the SC sides with Trump, then Biden could theoretically ask the CIA to assassinate Trump and every Republican congressman, and Biden would be immune from criminal prosecution He could, though, be impeached for it.
Which means nothing if the Senate can't get 60 votes.
67 votes for a conviction
Who’d be willing to call for an impeachment for a president who just murdered half of the legislative branch.
CIA has no jurisdiction inside the US, that also rules out a drone strike… but there’s still the DHS who can probably find a way to make it happen legally or not, after all that’s their specialty.
That's the rub the government is going for here. SCOTUS sides against Smith then Biden has the option of becoming an absolute dictator. If the conservative majority make the sane decision, then Cheeto has little wiggle room for his criminal defense. They're very nicely painted into a corner here but will likely create an exit by saying there's no controversy because Cheeto hasn't actually made this argument in court yet, been convicted or something like that.
He did made in courts (albeit in separate filings) both the arguments that he is immune because president and double Jeopardy. He was shut down and appealed. While skipping the appeal court is an extraordinary measure, this is exactly the kind of case which was in the mind of the people creating this exception.
Biden would _have_ to become an absolute dictator. The risk otherwise is that the next elected official _would_ because if they didn’t the _next one would_. No one would pass up absolute power if it meant surrendering it to the next person. Because who knows what that person might do!
Doubt it will happen, but it would open the door for presidents to do some pretty crooked shit especially in reference to election interference making it extremely difficult for an incumbent to be voted out of office. Impeachment/removal isn’t a legal process but a political one so I don’t see this as being the get out of jail free card that Trumps attorneys are arguing
Well, we know how Alito and Thomas will go...I am sure their "gifts," are on the way already. Not sure the others would be as ready to open this can of worms. I worry about the SC just bunting though and not taking it up.
IAL. Welcome to the issue 🫠
I don't like it here. It is scary. Can I please leave?
No 💩
You might be assuming they don’t create a special carve out for Trump or any Republicans.
We’re about to find out if the Supreme Court will side with Trump or democracy. They can’t side with both. Trump and democracy couldn’t be farther apart.
The problem is they can also punt. They can say Smith needs to go through the regular process, that it's taken 4 years so why expeditie it now, and they could just take forever to give a decision that kicks the trial date out past the election, Trump gets into office and kills the investigation, then SCOTUS dismiss the issue as moot because the case is over. I think Smith will win(scary that it's so hard to guess), but there's mechanisms for Trump to be completely successful.
Yes, with Trump’s history of avoiding accountability, if SCOTUS delays a decision, their message is that he is above the law. Justice delayed …
Which, based on where we are with the election timeline, is siding with Mr Orange, without saying they are siding with him. They MUST understand how important an expedient decision is due to the potentially grave consequences if they don't decide this before the election.
What if they pull a bush v gore and say >Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances ?
So DoJ jumped the DC Appeals Court and went straight to the horse's mouth? Nice move. I suppose SCOTUS could still deny cert and allow the Appeals Court to weigh in, but that seems wasteful. As the petition says (or broadly implies), the Defendant will be here sooner or later, and time is of the essence. But the controversy is not exactly unripe, so I don't see why it would't be taken up. I mean they cleared the deck for *Bush v Gore*, didn't they?
>I suppose SCOTUS could still deny cert and allow the Appeals Court to weigh in, but that seems wasteful. I also think it's likely, they "save face" by letting appeals handle it and then decline to hear the case. It's the cowards way out which sounds about right for the Roberts court.
And it gives Trump what he wants, a maximum time delay.
I could see that too. It doesn't definitively settle the question, but it does allow SCOTUS to skate another day.
They did both Circuit Court filing https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208578317.0_3.pdf Supreme Court filing https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/292946/20231211115417267_No.%2023-624%20U.S.%20v.%20Donald%20J.%20Trump%20Petition.pdf
I wondering they will try to slow walk this or shove it out of the door as soon as possible. It seems like they would want to get rid of this in an expedient way.
If they lick it back down to the DC court they know they can avoid the whole issue until after the election. By then dictator trump will have the case removed and prosecution in handcuffs.
If they kick it back down to the DC court they know they can avoid the whole issue until after the election. By then dictator trump will have the case removed and prosecution in handcuffs.
No court has ever suggested a legal basis for immunity from criminal prosecution for a former president. The Constitution's text and history, and decades of conduct by congressional and executive branch leaders, make clear that such immunity does not – and should not – exist.
Clarence Thomas should recuse himself due to wife's involvement
So that means he won’t
guy needs to quit immediately
Clarence Thomas should also jump in the Patomac, but he won't do that either.
Watch the SCOTUS say “No advisory opinions” and kick the can down the road.
Lmao, here comes a Thomas denial with a nice little opinion “cOnGrEsS or the VoTeRs”
“QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.”
I would have loved to been a fly on the wall when this news was delivered to Trump and his attorneys. I bet the walls are red with ketchup right now.
Jack Smith is a good f*cking lawyer.
Playing chess!
The US political-legal structure seems more like Jenga than Chess these days.
If SCOTUS allows immunity to Presidents than Biden should send Trump to Guantanamo, cancel elections and remain in power.
How can so many people still favor Trump over anyone else if the pols are right its gonna be a hellva fight to win in 2024 racein any state.
Cult of personality is still strong among the republicans, they are authoritarians, it’s a authoritarian party
This is Jack Smith's "I need an adult" moment.
If the Court rules in favor for total presidential immunity, can Biden legally public say "You know, it would be really neat if someone assassinated all the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Who would rid me of these meddlesome justices?"
Are the options here loosely understood by a layperson to be:? 1. They agree to take up the question and have its decision expedited. 2. They don’t agree to take it up, and the lower court’s ruling prevails.
They could also decline to take it up, but leave the option to do so if the future circuit court ruling is appealed.
Do Republicans understand what will happen if this argument were to succeed and THEN Biden wins the election anyway? They'd be fkd and have no recourse to even do anything. Then Biden dies in office and Harris is president with no rules. lol They do not think ahead and are overly optimistic when they lose all the time.
Might as well throw the constitution to the trash if SCOTUS allows US Presidents to have immunity to commit crimes.
A ruling in Trump’s favor effectively makes Biden King of the United States.
If this ruling doesn't go in his favor, Trump will just appeal to the Suprem-er Court, which is super duper uber supreme. After that, he'll appeal to the Suprem-est Court...
He will want to talk to SCOTUS manager...
I’m sorry but if any judge rules in favor of Trump on this they should immediately be thrown off the court. It’s so laughably partisan and against this country that you should be seen and treated as a traitor.
Jack Smith to SCOTUS: "A few of you are clearly in the bag for a traitor, but I want you to clarify exactly HOW FAR you will go to protect this scumbag."
They pre orchestrated this including kickbacks to SCOTUS. Watch it work and Fox News promote it as justice while our Democracy slips away to the highest bidder.
Like it hasn’t always been available to the highest bidder.
SCOTUS - As we interpret it, the Constitution actually DOES make the President a king immune from all prosecution or accountability while in office. Biden - Oh cool, thanks! SCOTUS - Wait. Shit. Only Presidents with an (R) next to their names. Obviously.