Article

2024-07-01 Government Corruption

Supreme Court says Trump has immunity for official acts in landmark ruling

[CBS] The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former President Donald Trump is entitled to immunity from federal prosecution for official actions he took while in office, a landmark decision in the height of an election season that could further delay the start of his criminal trial in Washington, D.C.

The 6-3 decision tosses out a ruling from the federal appeals court in Washington that concluded Trump is not entitled to broad immunity from criminal charges stemming from an alleged scheme to hold on to power after the 2020 election.

The ruling from the nation's highest court is an expansion of presidential power, since it extends immunity to criminal prosecutions of former presidents for their official conduct. Never before had the Supreme Court considered whether a former commander in chief could face criminal charges as a result of conduct that occurred while in the Oval Office.

Trump is the first to have held the presidency and faced prosecution. He has pleaded not guilty to four charges stemming from an alleged effort to subvert the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election.

THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION
"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President's exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient."

While concluding that former presidents have sweeping legal protections from charges for alleged acts that fell within their official duties, the Supreme Court rejected Trump's claims that he is entitled to sweeping, absolute immunity from prosecution that encompasses unofficial acts. Such a decision would've brought the federal prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith to an end.

The ruling makes it highly unlikely that a trial will happen before the November presidential election.

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has sought to delay proceedings in the case related to the 2020 election, as well as two other prosecutions, until after the upcoming presidential contest. If Trump defeats President Biden in November, he could order the Justice Department to seek to drop the federal charges against him or issue a pardon for himself, though the constitutionality of that maneuver has not been tested.

Courtesy of Skidmark, Zero Hedge has a round-up of responses to the ruling.

Posted by Frank G 2024-07-01 11:01|| || Front Page|| [11141 views ] Top
File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life, & Kleptocrats

#1 Thomas's opinion -

"None of the statutes cited by the Attorney General appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose."

..."Before the President or a Department Head can appoint any officer, however, the Constitution requires that the underlying office be “established by Law.”

..."By keeping the ability to create offices out of the President’s hands, the Founders ensured that no President could unilaterally create an army of officer positions to then fill with his supporters. Instead, our Constitution leaves it in the hands of the people’s elected representatives to determine whether new executive offices should exist".

Hit the road Jack and don't you come back
No more, no more, no more, no more .

Posted by Procopius2k 2024-07-01 15:38|| 2024-07-01 15:38|| Front Page Top

#2 Prayers answered.

Posted by Besoeker 2024-07-01 15:52|| 2024-07-01 15:52|| Front Page Top

#3 All presidents should. The only way to remove that immunity is a successful impeachment with both houses of congress and removal from office. Just as the constitution states.

Posted by DarthVader 2024-07-01 16:00|| 2024-07-01 16:00|| Front Page Top

#4 Also, NEVER protest in the front yard of Supreme Court justices. P

Posted by Whavick Scourge of the Apes9857 2024-07-01 17:55|| 2024-07-01 17:55|| Front Page Top

#5 ... Period.

Posted by Whavick Scourge of the Apes9857 2024-07-01 17:55|| 2024-07-01 17:55|| Front Page Top

#6 Thought the SOBs had jumped the shark with that Justice front lawn protest.

Posted by Besoeker 2024-07-01 18:20|| Besoeker 2024-07-01 18:20|| Front Page Top

#7 One term for all. No lifetime civil service jobs. No "wise men."

Posted by M. Murcek 2024-07-01 18:42|| 2024-07-01 18:42|| Front Page Top

#8 I think the entire thing was a big setup to play liberals and get them all upset.

Seriously. Was there any doubt that the President has immunity for acts associated with the office? Prosecutors have it. Judges have it. Even Senators have it for their official capacity. Mayors have it. Governors have it.

Posted by CrazyFool in Texas 2024-07-01 20:45|| 2024-07-01 20:45|| Front Page Top

#9 There shouldn’t have been any doubt, CrazyFool, and yet they were prosecuting former president Trump anyway.

Posted by trailing wife 2024-07-01 22:05|| 2024-07-01 22:05|| Front Page Top

04:04 Grom the Affective
02:32 Fairbanks
00:43 Skidmark
00:24 Skidmark
00:19 EMS Artifact
00:06 Rambler
00:03 Rambler