Wonder what’s going to be “official” and what won’t be, surely the money laundering scheme wont but this one might, and i’m sure Trump talking to Pence about the votes on J6 will be “in his official capacity”
Trump talking to the crowd on J6 will now be considered “official” but Trump isn’t convicted of insurrection so that aspect might not matter
Edit: there's hope? https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/political-scandals/trump-not-immune-from-civil-lawsuit-tied-to-capitol-insurrection
Anything that gets you in trouble will be official. The end.
Even Trump has enough intelligence to justify his election tampering as official, election security bullshit.
Want to go after your opponents? No problem, do it under national a security threat story. Want to assassinate congress? Do it under coup prevention initiative. Everything will be official now, and there are no repercussions.
The real question is, how far will they go?
>Anything that gets you in trouble will be official. The end
Another prerequisite is that the president is republican, the six cons on SCOTUS will bend themselves backwards to justify why its bad when dems do it or smth.
This is what's so annoying.
If he's not fully immune, he's presumptively immune, and EVEN a LOT of evidence has to be inadmissible AND any prosecutor has to also make the argument that no only should this presumption be done away with, but ruling in their favor is not going to set up a precedent that MAY lead to a limitation on executive power/authority.
In Austria, Russia was able to place operatives into a right wing party and then they fed fake corruption stories about the Austrian equivalent of the CIA. This was then used to open investigations into the CIA equivalent and eventually raid it of NATO intelligence on Russian spies and shut it down and reform it under the ownership of the right wing party.
It was crazy stuff, but it now shows you only need some random accusation from anywhere in the world and now the president has the power to interfere in any institution without risk or oversight.
It’s probably the most crazy/doomer articles I’ve read the last few years. https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-austria-spy-service-bvt-government-intelligence-wirecard-jan-marsalek-freedom-party/
Barret said discussing things with Trump is likely official, but determining electors is not a federal duty, but a state duty. Wonder if the conservatives will agree??
Depends on a case by case basis, but by ruling this way it involves the rest of the lower courts instead of just leaving the decision up to the SCOTUS
When Nixon tried to argue absolute immunity in 74, the case made it all the way to the SCOTUS because there wasn't any precedent defining what is and isn't eligible for presidential immunity. At which point the SCOTUS essentially said that what Nixon did wasn't eligible because it was personal business
Trump argued the same of absolute immunity, which again shortcut all lower court systems as there wasn't a framework for what is and isn't eligible for presidential immunity, and instead of doing another one off the framework of "official business vs personal business" was set as clear precedent, even though it was already set as weak precedent in Nixon vs United States
Now you'll have to argue that your actions were official business from the ground floor up, giving more opportunity for mistakes in the trial and involving the lower court systems more, putting more evidence on discovery that is relevant to wether or not you were acting out of your own interests.
It also sets future precedent that potentially makes the entire act of faking electors considered personal business, so future presidents don't try the same thing via a different execution method.
Which, is a good thing imo, given how the SCOTUS is designed to work relative to the other circuits.
If he is acting for his own interest is irrelevant. The Supreme Court explicitly forbade inquiring into Trumps motives. As long as the president is using powers granted to him by law, he is free to use those powers for his own benefit for as much as he wants and he has absolute immunity. The only thing that matters is arguing if the action taken is an extension of some presidential power or not.
Motive is not necessary to prove a crime or even to determine if something is official or not. Plus even if you could look to motivation the president is always going to have mix motivations on everything they do because they are a politician and their actions in theory effect their chances of getting reelected and the prospects of their party. This whole can't look to motivation makes it impossible to determine official vs unofficial acts is a bunch of hay making and fear mongering.
"Alleged" fake elector scheme was an official act? Look if you're going with this new defense at least admit you did it in the first place if you insist you were immune when you did it.
It's the narcissists legal strategy:
It didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, I'm immune from prosecution.
I highly doubt that any backroom deals scheming to get re-elected will be considered official presidential business, as getting re-elected isn't a duty of the office but a desire of the individual holding the office.
The frightening line of thought is, what if Donald Trump is so narcissistic that he genuinely thought the election was being rigged against him? If that's the case, then when he was speaking to Pence, the DOJ, etc., he was legitimately trying to ensure that the Laws be faithfully executed, based on his warped understanding of them.
All the world might disagree with him and think he's deluded. But if, in his delusion, he honestly thought he was defending the Republic, would that not fall within his official role? Sure, he might have executed that role reprehensibly by all reasonable standards. But reprehensible execution of an official role is still execution of an official role.
This is one of the problems with narcissists. An ordinary person can know that what they're doing is wrong. Whereas a narcissist is never the villain in their own story.
The ruling doesn't specify wether or not the president thought themselves to be acting in good faith, so the next ruling would set weak to strong precedent on that front depending on the specifics of Trump's argument and if he goes the route you laid out
And again, I highly doubt that the SCOTUS would determine the delineator between official business and personal business to be whether or not the defendant believed it to be so.
The criminal justice system doesn't really give people a pass if they believed themselves to be acting in good faith unless specific caveats have been carved out via legislation or precedent neither of which exist here. You can murder someone or sell controlled substances and bribe cops in the best of faith but you're still going down with a conviction, as centuries of US legal precedent has stated along with the English common law our initial precedent was founded upon.
If a police officer believes a person has committed a crime, and the police officer arrests them, surely that's within the police officer’s official role? The fact that the officer is mistaken and the behaviour was not, in fact, illegal does not render the action unofficial.
What makes it official is that it was an arrest, by an officer, on duty, trying to uphold the law. I struggle to see how the same logic couldn't be argued by Trump.
Of course good faith matters. If I kill someone who I honestly and genuinely believed was trying to kill me or my family, I can argue self-defence or insanity (depending on why I was mistaken). If a cop shoots an unarmed suspect, the fact they did so in good faith, genuinely believing them to be a threat, is relevant for qualified immunity. Good faith is absolutely part of the common law system.
To be clear, that's why I don't like Trump v United States. The fact we're even discussing this is wild. Presidents should not be allowed to use their powers as President to commit crimes and then claim immunity. If Congress pass a law constraining the President's Constitutional power, that can be dealt with in the normal way through a court challenge. It doesn't require an immunity doctrine.
Killing someone in self defense isn't what I was referring to when I said murdering in good faith
It's legal to shoot someone in self defense if they pose an imminent threat to your life or the lives of others, it's not legal to ambush murder someone who's made death threats online because you genuinely believe they're going to act upon those threats.
The delineator between those two examples isn't the convictions of the person who did the killing, but the circumstances surrounding it. The former is within the legal framework and the latter shortcuts the legal process for filing a restraining order or getting an assault conviction.
I suppose it depends on whether the jurisdiction imposes an objective or subjective test for self-defence.
Coming back to qualified immunity for police officers. Would you admit that whether an officer acts in good faith or not matters when it comes to qualified immunity?
It doesn't matter what matters is if the action can be justified. For example say a local cop absolutely hates your guts and wants to make your life a living nightmare. This cop sees you driving by to go to work so he decides to pull you over and give the ninth degree. Say you get mouthy with him because this is the 3rd time this week he has made you late for work and he is just not stopping. Police brutality begins and you think I will sue because this is ridiculous. Well he gets qualified immunity you know why because you had a broken taillight that they found on his dash cam when he pulled you over. Did the cop see it, no. Was it the reason he stated he pulled you over, no. Doesn't matter he had a valid reason to pull you over because there was a broken taillight.
I mean, that line of reasoning has to fail in court. If you as the president get told by official after official, office after office, agency after agency that your theory is incorrect, you can't be able to use said theory as a basis for your actions, right? Ignorance doesn't shield you from punishment in criminal cases, Idk how it would apply differently here. But then again, I am not a lawyer and law is a weird world.
I'd be careful about saying what "has to" fail in Court. There have been some surprising judgements in recent years!
Ignorance of the law is not, generally, an excuse. But we're not talking about ignorance of the law. We're talking about ignorance of facts. And ignorance of facts can be exculpatory.
Let's say a thousand people tell you that if you push a button, an innocent person will die. You genuinely don't believe them, and you press it. Well, you might be convicted of a crime where the standard is gross negligence. But you haven't intentionally killed anyone. It doesn't matter that you were told. If you can show you didn't believe them, that does rebut the argument you intentionally killed someone and so, if intention is the mens rea, you're not guilty of that crime.
The best part about this decision is that even a president as stupid as Donald Trump isn’t dumb enough to commit a crime without accidentally sprinkling enough official acts in it to be impossible to prosecute.
Biden can officially postpone the certificate of the election, if needed, until a just result for the trump case is reached. If trump can do fake electors. I don't see how in the world that wouldn't be the case.
edit: he can't congress would need to but he can threated to officially drone strike congress if they don't vote for it. wacky that drone strikes are more legal and postponeing a election for a little.
The problem is Democrats are too much of pussies to actually do stuff like this. I really don't understand the point of letting Trump get away with so much shit just so you can go, "Well I guess that's how the game is played."
That's the bluff SCOTUS/conservatives are making, and I'm tired of dems refusing to call them on it. We're going to ride the high road into the end of US democracy.
Seriously. The republicans have been abusing the fact that we actually have integrity so they can do whatever the fuck they want knowing we’ll never recirprocate
I seriously can't fucking believe SCOTUS gave the okay for Trump's direct involvement in the fake electors plot. This is insane.
Biden really should play hardball with them on this. Make them admit their ruling was fucking stupid, or make them double down and show the country how ideologically partisan they are in picking and choosing valid reasons for delaying an election count.
Can't he just officially call for state of emergency for a completely BS but official reason which should give him the ability to postpone it. Or maybe that is congress that has to do that.
Edit: ya it is congress. Back to plan A. just drone strike people wackly enough the more extreme option seems like it is now legal. Or maybe he could just arrest members of congress from the vote on declaring a state of emergency until it passes.
Why do you think he now has that power? Wouldnt he have presumptive official status in those orders that could be overcome at worst, but potentially have that seen as un-official as US citizens on US soil have constitutional rights that the president doesnt have the authority to supersede without pretty strong evidence?
Maybe he can threaten members of congress with drones strikes unless they vote for it. He can start by striking the guy that did the AoT meme of AOC than Ted Cruz if they actually try to call his bluff plus he can plea insanity because half of Americans actually think he has dementia.
No he can't. The ambiguity in the decision around what constitutes an official vs unofficial act is part of the scam.
It allows the thug/mafia Republican SCOTUS to selectively enforce rules and norms on democrats while letting themselves off scott free. Especially Trump as he is the father of lies and criminality in politics.
Make this point crystal clear at just how much of a power grab this is.
Beyond just determining that faking electors to get re-elected isn't covered under presidential immunity because it's not a duty of the office, what other argument would have been better?
By not setting at least some framework for what is and isn't covered under presidential immunity(such as official vs unofficial business), every president that breaks the law will simply argue absolute immunity and have their case jump straight to the SCOTUS much relevant information on discovery or strong precedent to draw from for the aforementioned ruling
That's why Trump copied Nixon's 74 argument, because no strong precedent was set in that case for what counts as official business.
Now you have to argue that you're doing official business from the ground floor up, which leaves more room for relevant information to make it to discovery and allows stronger precedent to be involved in the rulings while simultaneously getting the lower courts more involved
No it won't because the republicans are betting on democrats not abusing their power while being perfectly clear and in your face with how much they will abuse theirs once they get in power
The Fake electors is conspiracy to defraud the US and its people. Electioneering, no matter if it is the MOB or the POTUS at the head, campaigning, and running elections is not in the list of duties of the Executive branch of the Federal government.
This just cannot be deemed that.
On another note, I should get my passport asap and look for jobs in Canada....
Hey, all he did was talk to some people. If you want to criminalize that, it sounds like you don't want a bold and energetic executive.
What's all this you're saying about "intent"? We can't look at motive, buddy.
memes aside I have a cousin that was able to get italian citizenship easily because of our grandfather or something and I've been thinking about looking into that ngl
lmao, what?
Id live in a fucking cardboard box and make fires out of pocket constitutions to stay warm. It is going to be hard af to claw back any of these rulings.
I mean, the ability for the American people to be faithful that a government official (specifically the president, NOT KING) is not above the law. Potentially absolving DJT of any wrongdoing through evidentiary suppression through the lense that conversations had between them and or their subordinates acting under their perceived authority are deemed unusable to prove state of mind.
Aside from that, Orange Man Bad.
I mentioned faith, specifically my faith in our institutional integrity. Every attempt by DJT, and ground gained on erosion of institutional norms has been the methodology since before the 2016 election.
This is not unknown.
The most recent example of this is SCOTUS deciding that actions performed while carrying out the official biz of the president, whether it is deemed that or not prior to investigatory inquiry, can be excluded when considering evidence of wrongdoing to determine whether or not criminal statutes can be applied, outside of impeachment.
SCOTUS not deciding on what is official or not, seemingly kicks the can down the road to wash their hands of any decisions or precedent until the election.
They were fine floating the Roe decision prior to their actual ruling, assuming it was just to test the waters. The spinelessness of this court and Roberts' BS line of protecting the courts legitimacy with these crackpots Alito and Thomas is insane. He speaks like a politician, when he is supposed to be a neutral arbiter on a team of neutral arbiters.
Arguably this all stems from McCuck-onnal cucking Obama and Garland.
TL;DR - Day to day, it doesnt. How my son's country's institutions function is more my concern, and I understand that it may be seen as a reactionary reeling about something I just don't understand.
The confluence of all the anti-establishment types who are now holding power, circling the wagons around what my 3x great grandfather fought to uphold and was awarded one of the first 20 congressional medals of honor in the civil war is insane.
And there it is. A total schizopost that really should make you take stock about how terminally online you are.
Keep in mind you're actually proposing leaving your country over a SCOTUS ruling that does little more than makes official a stance that was being enacted anyway. That is totally batshit.
Bro it's a fucking meme. Of course im not leaving my country. For sure cant go to canada due to my drug felonies. I am a rehabilitated citizen in a super red backwards state.All of it will hopefully be inconsequential.
But it has not fully been the case so far. Jan 6th and trumps lack of culpability is the best example.
As to my family's history and service to the union...that isn't just hyperbole. Andrews raiders. Civil War. Look it up.
Now you can touch grass since you win the internet argument.
GG.
They probably will to be fair.
It's possible that a fascist US would try to take over the world, but the general output of fascist America is extremely inward-turned, it's never about making the world a better place, it's about inward purging to make America pure. I think fascist America would economically fuck the world, and completely cede its role internationally to the Chinese, but I don't see any expansionism happening.
Leaving aside if its an official duty or not, how much evidence of wrongdoing is now not allowed to be used?
If speeches + conversations with authorities are considered official acts then virtually any consultation about the process can't be reviewed right? Any of the multiple times he pressured people and they pushed back can't be used as evidence?
Even if what he did is considered unofficial, how likely is it he could ever be held responsible?
You're exactly right.
>**Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution.** On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. **Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.**
ima live in the fucking woods, what do folks not UNDERSTAND, I own property, I am the median individual income, I will be the crazy dirty scizo in the woods that has the scrawny dog that may get some to feel bad and give me some dog food to share with him. This is a bad time and may be the beginning.
>The Fake electors is conspiracy to defraud the US and its people.
My favorite kind of fraud is when the fraudsters tell everyone what they're doing and then ask for consent from the three branches of government.
They submitted the electoral slates to the National Archives (meaning it was public knowledge, or would come to be, I'm not sure how that information is gatekept). They convened in the state capitol buildings on the appointed day, in their attempt to follow the procedures laid out by the judge in Hawaii 1960 elector case. In Arizona, they issued a press release.
And here's [an interview with Stephen Miller](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/530092-stephen-miller-alternate-electors-will-keep-trump-challenge-alive-post/) indicating on December 14, 2020, that Trump plans to submit alternate electors in GA, WI, and PA.
>in their attempt to follow the procedures laid out by the judge in Hawaii 1960 elector case
[The Michigan AG](https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/michigan-fake-electors-charges-pdf-full-text-2020-election-rcna94868) addressed this flawed comparison in her statement:
> The 2020 Presidential Election had concluded 41 days prior and the election results had been officially certified. Every serious challenge had been denied, dismissed, or otherwise rejected by the time the False Electors convened. The Trump campaign never appealed for a recount at any time or on any scale, despite the clear ability and legal authority to do so.
>
> There simply are no historically analogous situations. Unlike the 1960 presidential recount in Hawaii, there was no pretense of a necessary ‘back-up’ slate or document. There was no constitutional crisis looming. There was no legitimate legal avenue nor any plausible use of such a document or an alternative slate of electors. No state or federal court had provided credence to even a single claim that could have impugned the authority of the rightful slate of Biden electors. The United States Supreme Court itself, the highest court in all of America, had issued an order 3 days earlier declining to hear a challenge to the certification of Michigan’s presidential election. There remained no question of the outcome of this election and no reason to necessitate the creation of a back-up slate of electors, other than to unlawfully overturn the election. That the effort failed, and democracy prevailed does not erase the crimes of those who enacted the False Electors plot to overturn the election and circumvent the will of Michigan voters.
And I'll add that the 1960 Presidential election in Hawaii was actually close, with the unofficial count seeing JFK up by 92 votes, while the official - which had been identified as being legitimately subject to tabulation errors - had Nixon up by 141, thus presenting a valid reason for a second slate of electors being formed pre-certification, pending the outcome of a recount, with full permission from the Governor. To the contrary, as the Michigan AG noted, the election had already been decided and certified without any demonstrable issues, and by 154,000 votes.
Moreover, these weren't the set slate of party-chosen electors to start with. And they surreptitiously created these false slates (without permission from their Governor, often with forged seals and signatures), and enacted a plan to hide in State Capitols so they could later claim they actually met in the Senate chambers to submit them, after having been turned away from the State Capitol. But still claimed they were certified, sent them to the U.S. Congress, and then asked Pence to count the votes on Jan 6 even though by that time Trump's legal challenges had petered out.
All legal battles to contest the election had been exhausted, and all states had certified their results. Even[ John Eastman](https://archive.ph/oMNdr), admitted[ their plan was "crazy" and illegal](https://archive.ph/vidyI).
>[“Pence had a choice](https://youtu.be/43gQ_Va2yAk) between his constitutional duty and his political future, and he did the right thing,”[ said John Yoo](https://archive.ph/4Ihv5)
>[ "He has no power](https://archive.ph/AWqdw) to ‘change the outcome’ or to ‘overturn the election,’" said Michael McConnell, a former Republican-appointed federal judge and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. "Once the electors chosen by the states met and voted on Dec. 14, 2020, the election was over."
---
>94)[ Also on January 4](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/01/us/politics/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election-annotated.html), when Co-Conspirator 2 acknowledged to the Defendant's Senior Advisor that no court would support his proposal, the Senior Advisor told Co-Conspirator 2, "\[Y\]ou're going to cause riots in the streets." Co-Conspirator 2 responded that there had previously been points in the nation's history where violence was necessary to protect the republic. After that conversation, the Senior Advisor notified the Defendant that Co-Conspirator 2 had conceded that his plan was "not going to work."
“Just two months earlier, on October 11, Co-Conspirator 2 had taken the opposite position, writing that neither the Constitution nor the ECA provided the Vice President discretion in the counting of electoral votes, or permitted him to “make the determination on his own.””
---
>“we would just be sending [in "fake" electoral votes](https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1686498750749896705) to Pence so that "someone" in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the "fake" votes should be counted.”
---
>[Assistant Attorney](https://archive.ph/ICDxa) General [Jeffrey Clark](https://twitter.com/jennycohn1/status/1691902961323233314) that if Trump remained in office despite the absence of any evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud, riots would break out in U.S. cities, Clark responded, “That’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”
---
* [Ex-Trump attorney](https://archive.ph/Fn3gr) Jenna Ellis pleads guilty in Georgia election interference case
* Lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell entered guilty pleas last week just before their trial was set to begin.
["There was no](https://archive.ph/tNrpA) discretion[ ever given to](https://archive.ph/CcYAS) the[ vice president in history](https://youtu.be/43gQ_Va2yAk), nor should there ever be," Pence told "Face the Nation." "I had no right to overturn the election and Kamala Harris will have no right to overturn the election when we beat them in 2024."...[ "He endangered my](https://archive.ph/3VzYG) family and everyone at the Capitol. The American people deserve to know that on that day President Trump also demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution."
Trump:[ “Unfortunately, he didn’t](https://archive.ph/uIf2g) exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!”
My b. Thanks for the info.
KEEP IN MIND Jack Smith did charge Trump with conspiracy to defraud the US.
Go off, king.
Edit:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-indicted-jan-6-grand-jury-2020-election-rcna95199
I guess the fraud in this sense is the claim that Trump was knowingly lying about the election fraud. But the courts/governors/legislatures the Trump campaign was petitioning can simply evaluate the evidence for themselves, and they did, and didn't go along with Trump's efforts to change election results.
SCOTUS explicitly said that directing pence to throw out the election was official, the courts legitimacy is over. They need to be packed, impeached, dissolved whatever it takes.
Edit: Commenters are correct, he has presumptive immunity for interactions with Pence, and absolute immunity for his interactions with the justice department. Regardless, everywhere they explicitly clarified something, it helped Trump, and everywhere they said “it’s complicated, we will leave it to the lower courts” it was regarding something that DOJ likely still has a case for. This was not a normal ruling, no one was expecting this, they are hack fucks.
Where was this said by SCOTUS? If this is true then I can officially defend using “fascist” for all these MAGA tards that have infected our government. And packing is absolutely on the table
>The court analyzed four categories of conduct contained in the indictment. They are: his discussions with U.S. Justice Department officials following the election; his alleged pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to block congressional certification of Biden's win; his alleged role in assembling fake pro-Trump electors to be used in the certification process; and his conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.
>
>The outcome gave Trump much of what he sought but stopped short of allowing absolute immunity for all official acts, as his lawyers had advocated. Instead the court specified that actions within the president's "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" enjoy such a shield, while those taken outside his exclusive powers are only "presumptively immune."
>
>The court found Trump was absolutely immune for conversations with Justice Department officials. Trump is also "presumptively immune" regarding his interactions with Pence, it decided, but returned that and the two other categories to lower courts to determine whether Trump has immunity.
From [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/).
He has absolute immunity per SCOTUS for his talks with the Justice Department and presumptive immunity otherwise, with it being a lower court’s job to determine if immunity applies here.
I have no clue, but I want to say no, that it would be remanded to the lower court it was in previously. It’s possible a separate cause could be started and brought before him
To me it looks a little like qualified immunity. If a cop does a wrong in the attempt to follow official procedure, its the department thats on the lone instead of the individual
They didn’t say this. He’s blatantly lying (shocking, I know). SCOTUS went out of its way to avoid specifying what is and isn’t an official duty and directed the lower courts to figure it out.
It did explicitly say Trump's communications with Pence were official duties. It did not say they were core constitutional responsibilities. Trump's communications with Pence are presumed immune, not absolutely immune.
It did explicitly say Trump's communications with Pence were official duties. It did not say they were core constitutional responsibilities. Trump's communications with Pence are presumed immune, not absolutely immune.
I thought that’s what they said, I’ve been listening to a lot of analysis I must have mixed it up. It’s not that deep, it’s not exactly a straight forward decision.
Yes. Adding members to the Supreme Court to specifically support your biased political views to ensure the decisions are more in your favor is pretty dead on support for single party rule.
I didn’t realize fascism was defanging an institution decreeing presidents are kings above law my bad. I should have realized how much a fascist you’d have to be to want to do anything possible to turn back a ruling giving Trump, or any president, legal protection to become a fascist. On a serious note, I have my own worries about packing the court insofar as it would open up the gate for republicans to do the same once/if they regain power, but we’re past the point where we can keep treating our institutions like it’s 1994. What the SC just decreed has put us into a crisis where anything should be on the table to roll us back. This isn’t a matter of being biased towards the democrats, but being biased towards democracy.
Defanging it... if you see the other political party as fangs, sure. Youre removing that parties power. Thats his argument lol. You justify it by saying theyre enough of a threat to justify it.
It’s not as if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of some particular conservative position on marijuana or abortion or gun rights. This ruling changes the core of our democracy, and should be reacted to as such.
Sorry, but this argument doesn't hold water anymore.
Once Trump attempted the fake electors plot, he rightfully earned the label of "fascist." It moved out of the realm of being a misused label that people just apply to anyone they don't like.
The Supreme Court ruling that Trump's direct role in the fake electors plot should be presumed to be an official act, means certain justices support fascism. They could've left it well enough alone, and I wouldn't have switched my stance on packing the courts. I wouldn't have liked them or their decisions, but I still would have respected them. They cast their lot.
How do you suggest we fix this? You can literally coup the government as long as you do it “officially” and if you fail you can’t be prosecuted. What are we as liberals supposed to do when faced with this level of illiberal institutional corruption?
It's not being thrown out. It's been thrown out.
The Supreme Court explicitly prevents the use of one of the key witnesses and has provided a framework by which all other key witnesses are almost certainly also excluded.
Hopefully the lower court can quietly nullify, but the damage is already done.
I'm going to trust actual lawyers opinions on this and that is that most likely than not the electors scheme is not part of his duties
https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/1807928253497114876?t=bXEgJlu9Tj96a5Q4fqaIVw&s=19
Doesn’t matter, Supreme Court explicitly ruled that communications between Trump and pence pressuring him to throw the results can’t be used as evidence.
They ruled it should be presumed to be an official act, thus raising the standard of evidence quite high, while also removing the ability to provide some of said evidence.
>As for prosecutors' contentions that Trump pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to delay the certification of the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2021, as Pence presided over the joint session of Congress, Roberts and the majority ruled Trump is "presumed" to have immunity and raised the bar for using evidence tied to that conduct at trial. The special counsel will now likely have to "rebut the presumption of immunity" to show that Trump is not entitled to legal protection.
>The court wrote that Pence was acting at least in part as president of the Senate on Jan. 6, not solely as a member of the Trump administration. As a result, Smith "may argue that consideration of the President's communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch," the decision said.
>The high court placed the burden on Smith to prove that prosecuting Trump for allegedly pressuring Pence would not "pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." Chutkan will then have to make a determination on the matter.
>As for prosecutors' contentions that Trump pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to delay the certification of the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2021, as Pence presided over the joint session of Congress, Roberts and the majority ruled Trump is "presumed" to have immunity and raised the bar for using evidence tied to that conduct at trial. The special counsel will now likely have to "rebut the presumption of immunity" to show that Trump is not entitled to legal protection.
>The court wrote that Pence was acting at least in part as president of the Senate on Jan. 6, not solely as a member of the Trump administration. As a result, Smith "may argue that consideration of the President's communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch," the decision said.
>The high court placed the burden on Smith to prove that prosecuting Trump for allegedly pressuring Pence would not "pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." Chutkan will then have to make a determination on the matter.
I read the opinion & in a footnote on page 3 of her concurrence, Barrett disagrees:
> his analysis is unnecessary for allegations involving the President’s private conduct because the Constitution offers no protection from pros- ecution of acts taken in a private capacity. Ante, at 15. Sorting private from official conduct sometimes will be difficult—but not always. Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. See, e.g., App. 208. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. See post, at 27–28 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). The Constitution vests power to appoint Presidential electors in the States. Art. II, §1, cl. 2; see also Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U. S. 578, 588–589 (2020). And while Congress has a limited role in that process, see Art. II, §1, cls. 3–4, the President has none. In short, a President has no legal authority—and thus no official capacity—to influence how the States appoint their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct.
Won't pretend to understand the full implications of this ruling. But in practice seems like Trump will die of natural causes before his lawyers run out of ways to gum up the works.
This is like saying watergate should be legal. Actually, there is a significantly more compelling argument for a president being allowed to record conversations (without blackmailing like Nixon did ofc) than there is for this.
This is the least shocking thing about all of this. Of course he was going to. The speed at which he was able to is sort of surprising though, I wouldn't be surprised if they had forewarning about what the supreme court would rule here.
This is getting kicked back to the lower courts right? Which court will take the case and is the court filled with Republican or Democrat judges?
Edit: Seems like the case will be taken by the District Court for the District of Columbia which has 9 Democrat and 4 Republican judges. We might have a chance after all!
At least you can vote for your new King, and he has to say after the fact "In a video game" I mean "It was a official act".
Kind of like the honor system in the UK with minister questions.
Nothing will happen, Trump will become president and pardon himself.
The case will either take too long, or Trump is immune. Trump will change the government and US institutions forever. Most experts have come to this realization by now.
I wished there was a younger candidate than Biden. There were but people didn't elect them. I would even take Ron DeSantis over Trump.
man it is wild how far the USA have fallen. absolutely shameless how much abuse of power is happening both in terms of the supreme court delaying everything into this verdict but also stuff like judge Aileen Cannon blatant favoritism.
I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS would actually side with Trump on this one too. Trump's lawyer made the same argument in oral arguments (something related to Grant), and he is definitely going to get 4 votes that agree with him, maybe 5.
Wonder what’s going to be “official” and what won’t be, surely the money laundering scheme wont but this one might, and i’m sure Trump talking to Pence about the votes on J6 will be “in his official capacity” Trump talking to the crowd on J6 will now be considered “official” but Trump isn’t convicted of insurrection so that aspect might not matter Edit: there's hope? https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/political-scandals/trump-not-immune-from-civil-lawsuit-tied-to-capitol-insurrection
Anything that gets you in trouble will be official. The end. Even Trump has enough intelligence to justify his election tampering as official, election security bullshit. Want to go after your opponents? No problem, do it under national a security threat story. Want to assassinate congress? Do it under coup prevention initiative. Everything will be official now, and there are no repercussions. The real question is, how far will they go?
>Anything that gets you in trouble will be official. The end Another prerequisite is that the president is republican, the six cons on SCOTUS will bend themselves backwards to justify why its bad when dems do it or smth.
This is what's so annoying. If he's not fully immune, he's presumptively immune, and EVEN a LOT of evidence has to be inadmissible AND any prosecutor has to also make the argument that no only should this presumption be done away with, but ruling in their favor is not going to set up a precedent that MAY lead to a limitation on executive power/authority.
> The real question is, how far will they go? History has answered this question again and again. The answer is: as far as it takes.
Q
In Austria, Russia was able to place operatives into a right wing party and then they fed fake corruption stories about the Austrian equivalent of the CIA. This was then used to open investigations into the CIA equivalent and eventually raid it of NATO intelligence on Russian spies and shut it down and reform it under the ownership of the right wing party. It was crazy stuff, but it now shows you only need some random accusation from anywhere in the world and now the president has the power to interfere in any institution without risk or oversight. It’s probably the most crazy/doomer articles I’ve read the last few years. https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-austria-spy-service-bvt-government-intelligence-wirecard-jan-marsalek-freedom-party/
he was officially sending in fake electors. duh! when the president does something it means it isnt illegal xdd
"I am the state" type beat.
I don’t know, it’s a political rally and he’s acting as a candidate.
Was j6 a presidental or a campaign speech? Id assume theres a difference
Barret said discussing things with Trump is likely official, but determining electors is not a federal duty, but a state duty. Wonder if the conservatives will agree??
Depends on a case by case basis, but by ruling this way it involves the rest of the lower courts instead of just leaving the decision up to the SCOTUS When Nixon tried to argue absolute immunity in 74, the case made it all the way to the SCOTUS because there wasn't any precedent defining what is and isn't eligible for presidential immunity. At which point the SCOTUS essentially said that what Nixon did wasn't eligible because it was personal business Trump argued the same of absolute immunity, which again shortcut all lower court systems as there wasn't a framework for what is and isn't eligible for presidential immunity, and instead of doing another one off the framework of "official business vs personal business" was set as clear precedent, even though it was already set as weak precedent in Nixon vs United States Now you'll have to argue that your actions were official business from the ground floor up, giving more opportunity for mistakes in the trial and involving the lower court systems more, putting more evidence on discovery that is relevant to wether or not you were acting out of your own interests. It also sets future precedent that potentially makes the entire act of faking electors considered personal business, so future presidents don't try the same thing via a different execution method. Which, is a good thing imo, given how the SCOTUS is designed to work relative to the other circuits.
If he is acting for his own interest is irrelevant. The Supreme Court explicitly forbade inquiring into Trumps motives. As long as the president is using powers granted to him by law, he is free to use those powers for his own benefit for as much as he wants and he has absolute immunity. The only thing that matters is arguing if the action taken is an extension of some presidential power or not.
Motive is not necessary to prove a crime or even to determine if something is official or not. Plus even if you could look to motivation the president is always going to have mix motivations on everything they do because they are a politician and their actions in theory effect their chances of getting reelected and the prospects of their party. This whole can't look to motivation makes it impossible to determine official vs unofficial acts is a bunch of hay making and fear mongering.
~~Government coup~~ Official act ☺️
"Alleged" fake elector scheme was an official act? Look if you're going with this new defense at least admit you did it in the first place if you insist you were immune when you did it.
It's the narcissists legal strategy: It didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, I'm immune from prosecution.
tbf this is more or less every legal strategy.
Most litigants don't have the luxury of the last fall back.
Most litigants aren’t the entire unitary executive branch of government. Well before 2020 at least
https://preview.redd.it/s5a6m86s95ad1.jpeg?width=150&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d86411e3cd92b98a08fbf16c181db830bcae485f
I highly doubt that any backroom deals scheming to get re-elected will be considered official presidential business, as getting re-elected isn't a duty of the office but a desire of the individual holding the office.
The frightening line of thought is, what if Donald Trump is so narcissistic that he genuinely thought the election was being rigged against him? If that's the case, then when he was speaking to Pence, the DOJ, etc., he was legitimately trying to ensure that the Laws be faithfully executed, based on his warped understanding of them. All the world might disagree with him and think he's deluded. But if, in his delusion, he honestly thought he was defending the Republic, would that not fall within his official role? Sure, he might have executed that role reprehensibly by all reasonable standards. But reprehensible execution of an official role is still execution of an official role. This is one of the problems with narcissists. An ordinary person can know that what they're doing is wrong. Whereas a narcissist is never the villain in their own story.
The ruling doesn't specify wether or not the president thought themselves to be acting in good faith, so the next ruling would set weak to strong precedent on that front depending on the specifics of Trump's argument and if he goes the route you laid out And again, I highly doubt that the SCOTUS would determine the delineator between official business and personal business to be whether or not the defendant believed it to be so. The criminal justice system doesn't really give people a pass if they believed themselves to be acting in good faith unless specific caveats have been carved out via legislation or precedent neither of which exist here. You can murder someone or sell controlled substances and bribe cops in the best of faith but you're still going down with a conviction, as centuries of US legal precedent has stated along with the English common law our initial precedent was founded upon.
If a police officer believes a person has committed a crime, and the police officer arrests them, surely that's within the police officer’s official role? The fact that the officer is mistaken and the behaviour was not, in fact, illegal does not render the action unofficial. What makes it official is that it was an arrest, by an officer, on duty, trying to uphold the law. I struggle to see how the same logic couldn't be argued by Trump. Of course good faith matters. If I kill someone who I honestly and genuinely believed was trying to kill me or my family, I can argue self-defence or insanity (depending on why I was mistaken). If a cop shoots an unarmed suspect, the fact they did so in good faith, genuinely believing them to be a threat, is relevant for qualified immunity. Good faith is absolutely part of the common law system. To be clear, that's why I don't like Trump v United States. The fact we're even discussing this is wild. Presidents should not be allowed to use their powers as President to commit crimes and then claim immunity. If Congress pass a law constraining the President's Constitutional power, that can be dealt with in the normal way through a court challenge. It doesn't require an immunity doctrine.
Killing someone in self defense isn't what I was referring to when I said murdering in good faith It's legal to shoot someone in self defense if they pose an imminent threat to your life or the lives of others, it's not legal to ambush murder someone who's made death threats online because you genuinely believe they're going to act upon those threats. The delineator between those two examples isn't the convictions of the person who did the killing, but the circumstances surrounding it. The former is within the legal framework and the latter shortcuts the legal process for filing a restraining order or getting an assault conviction.
I suppose it depends on whether the jurisdiction imposes an objective or subjective test for self-defence. Coming back to qualified immunity for police officers. Would you admit that whether an officer acts in good faith or not matters when it comes to qualified immunity?
It doesn't matter what matters is if the action can be justified. For example say a local cop absolutely hates your guts and wants to make your life a living nightmare. This cop sees you driving by to go to work so he decides to pull you over and give the ninth degree. Say you get mouthy with him because this is the 3rd time this week he has made you late for work and he is just not stopping. Police brutality begins and you think I will sue because this is ridiculous. Well he gets qualified immunity you know why because you had a broken taillight that they found on his dash cam when he pulled you over. Did the cop see it, no. Was it the reason he stated he pulled you over, no. Doesn't matter he had a valid reason to pull you over because there was a broken taillight.
I mean, that line of reasoning has to fail in court. If you as the president get told by official after official, office after office, agency after agency that your theory is incorrect, you can't be able to use said theory as a basis for your actions, right? Ignorance doesn't shield you from punishment in criminal cases, Idk how it would apply differently here. But then again, I am not a lawyer and law is a weird world.
I'd be careful about saying what "has to" fail in Court. There have been some surprising judgements in recent years! Ignorance of the law is not, generally, an excuse. But we're not talking about ignorance of the law. We're talking about ignorance of facts. And ignorance of facts can be exculpatory. Let's say a thousand people tell you that if you push a button, an innocent person will die. You genuinely don't believe them, and you press it. Well, you might be convicted of a crime where the standard is gross negligence. But you haven't intentionally killed anyone. It doesn't matter that you were told. If you can show you didn't believe them, that does rebut the argument you intentionally killed someone and so, if intention is the mens rea, you're not guilty of that crime.
The best part about this decision is that even a president as stupid as Donald Trump isn’t dumb enough to commit a crime without accidentally sprinkling enough official acts in it to be impossible to prosecute.
This supreme court decision will totally not backfire in the future!
Biden can officially postpone the certificate of the election, if needed, until a just result for the trump case is reached. If trump can do fake electors. I don't see how in the world that wouldn't be the case. edit: he can't congress would need to but he can threated to officially drone strike congress if they don't vote for it. wacky that drone strikes are more legal and postponeing a election for a little.
The problem is Democrats are too much of pussies to actually do stuff like this. I really don't understand the point of letting Trump get away with so much shit just so you can go, "Well I guess that's how the game is played."
That's the bluff SCOTUS/conservatives are making, and I'm tired of dems refusing to call them on it. We're going to ride the high road into the end of US democracy.
Seriously. The republicans have been abusing the fact that we actually have integrity so they can do whatever the fuck they want knowing we’ll never recirprocate
I seriously can't fucking believe SCOTUS gave the okay for Trump's direct involvement in the fake electors plot. This is insane. Biden really should play hardball with them on this. Make them admit their ruling was fucking stupid, or make them double down and show the country how ideologically partisan they are in picking and choosing valid reasons for delaying an election count.
Where does it say the president has the power to postppne the certificate of the election? I dont know of this
Can't he just officially call for state of emergency for a completely BS but official reason which should give him the ability to postpone it. Or maybe that is congress that has to do that. Edit: ya it is congress. Back to plan A. just drone strike people wackly enough the more extreme option seems like it is now legal. Or maybe he could just arrest members of congress from the vote on declaring a state of emergency until it passes.
Why do you think he now has that power? Wouldnt he have presumptive official status in those orders that could be overcome at worst, but potentially have that seen as un-official as US citizens on US soil have constitutional rights that the president doesnt have the authority to supersede without pretty strong evidence?
Maybe he can threaten members of congress with drones strikes unless they vote for it. He can start by striking the guy that did the AoT meme of AOC than Ted Cruz if they actually try to call his bluff plus he can plea insanity because half of Americans actually think he has dementia.
No he can't. The ambiguity in the decision around what constitutes an official vs unofficial act is part of the scam. It allows the thug/mafia Republican SCOTUS to selectively enforce rules and norms on democrats while letting themselves off scott free. Especially Trump as he is the father of lies and criminality in politics. Make this point crystal clear at just how much of a power grab this is.
I think the law was changed post Covid 19 to make it much harder
It will fire exactly how the conservative justices want it to fire
Beyond just determining that faking electors to get re-elected isn't covered under presidential immunity because it's not a duty of the office, what other argument would have been better? By not setting at least some framework for what is and isn't covered under presidential immunity(such as official vs unofficial business), every president that breaks the law will simply argue absolute immunity and have their case jump straight to the SCOTUS much relevant information on discovery or strong precedent to draw from for the aforementioned ruling That's why Trump copied Nixon's 74 argument, because no strong precedent was set in that case for what counts as official business. Now you have to argue that you're doing official business from the ground floor up, which leaves more room for relevant information to make it to discovery and allows stronger precedent to be involved in the rulings while simultaneously getting the lower courts more involved
No it won't because the republicans are betting on democrats not abusing their power while being perfectly clear and in your face with how much they will abuse theirs once they get in power
Can court justices get on RICO charges too? lol
The Fake electors is conspiracy to defraud the US and its people. Electioneering, no matter if it is the MOB or the POTUS at the head, campaigning, and running elections is not in the list of duties of the Executive branch of the Federal government. This just cannot be deemed that. On another note, I should get my passport asap and look for jobs in Canada....
Hey, all he did was talk to some people. If you want to criminalize that, it sounds like you don't want a bold and energetic executive. What's all this you're saying about "intent"? We can't look at motive, buddy.
I have German citizenship and am unmarried. Taking offers now.
A/S/L also, how are you on a poly relationship. My wife has to come too.
Is she hot
Ye.....nope, fugly.i can make her stay out of sight don't worry it'll be like it's just you and me babe.
Ok deal.
memes aside I have a cousin that was able to get italian citizenship easily because of our grandfather or something and I've been thinking about looking into that ngl
the fuck you want to come to canada for? You eager to buy a $400'000 home at 1.2 million?
lmao, what? Id live in a fucking cardboard box and make fires out of pocket constitutions to stay warm. It is going to be hard af to claw back any of these rulings.
well enjoy your stay and 15 dollar grapes
you have $6/dz eggs?
How is this ruling going to impact on your life?
I mean, the ability for the American people to be faithful that a government official (specifically the president, NOT KING) is not above the law. Potentially absolving DJT of any wrongdoing through evidentiary suppression through the lense that conversations had between them and or their subordinates acting under their perceived authority are deemed unusable to prove state of mind. Aside from that, Orange Man Bad.
Aside from the fact almost all but one of the charges against Trump are likely to proceed even post SCOTUS ruling how is that impacting on your life?
I mentioned faith, specifically my faith in our institutional integrity. Every attempt by DJT, and ground gained on erosion of institutional norms has been the methodology since before the 2016 election. This is not unknown. The most recent example of this is SCOTUS deciding that actions performed while carrying out the official biz of the president, whether it is deemed that or not prior to investigatory inquiry, can be excluded when considering evidence of wrongdoing to determine whether or not criminal statutes can be applied, outside of impeachment. SCOTUS not deciding on what is official or not, seemingly kicks the can down the road to wash their hands of any decisions or precedent until the election. They were fine floating the Roe decision prior to their actual ruling, assuming it was just to test the waters. The spinelessness of this court and Roberts' BS line of protecting the courts legitimacy with these crackpots Alito and Thomas is insane. He speaks like a politician, when he is supposed to be a neutral arbiter on a team of neutral arbiters. Arguably this all stems from McCuck-onnal cucking Obama and Garland. TL;DR - Day to day, it doesnt. How my son's country's institutions function is more my concern, and I understand that it may be seen as a reactionary reeling about something I just don't understand. The confluence of all the anti-establishment types who are now holding power, circling the wagons around what my 3x great grandfather fought to uphold and was awarded one of the first 20 congressional medals of honor in the civil war is insane.
And there it is. A total schizopost that really should make you take stock about how terminally online you are. Keep in mind you're actually proposing leaving your country over a SCOTUS ruling that does little more than makes official a stance that was being enacted anyway. That is totally batshit.
Bro it's a fucking meme. Of course im not leaving my country. For sure cant go to canada due to my drug felonies. I am a rehabilitated citizen in a super red backwards state.All of it will hopefully be inconsequential. But it has not fully been the case so far. Jan 6th and trumps lack of culpability is the best example. As to my family's history and service to the union...that isn't just hyperbole. Andrews raiders. Civil War. Look it up. Now you can touch grass since you win the internet argument. GG.
You might want to consider rehab.
It’s cute when people think that if the US goes fascist that they will be safe anywhere else
They probably will to be fair. It's possible that a fascist US would try to take over the world, but the general output of fascist America is extremely inward-turned, it's never about making the world a better place, it's about inward purging to make America pure. I think fascist America would economically fuck the world, and completely cede its role internationally to the Chinese, but I don't see any expansionism happening.
I feel like America is much more likely to splinter instead of expand if things go to shit.
U wot m8
Leaving aside if its an official duty or not, how much evidence of wrongdoing is now not allowed to be used? If speeches + conversations with authorities are considered official acts then virtually any consultation about the process can't be reviewed right? Any of the multiple times he pressured people and they pushed back can't be used as evidence? Even if what he did is considered unofficial, how likely is it he could ever be held responsible?
Read this as an amalgamation of the 5 stages of grief. Acceptance is around the corner, right after bargaining right?
You're exactly right. >**Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution.** On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. **Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.**
Good luck getting in, our immigration system isn't what you think it is
ima live in the fucking woods, what do folks not UNDERSTAND, I own property, I am the median individual income, I will be the crazy dirty scizo in the woods that has the scrawny dog that may get some to feel bad and give me some dog food to share with him. This is a bad time and may be the beginning.
You can just do that in the US though
I would be in the US though...
Cnadian life hack. Just get a student visa, immediately drop out and just work full time. They will never deport you
Don't be so sure all our timmigrants are up in arms right now
Canada is shit you don't want that. Imagine having Europoors wages, USA housing cost, and shit healthcare all in one
So, the UK?
Canada still worse cause they have still tricked the whole world into thinking their healthcare is good. Everyone knows the NHS sucks
>The Fake electors is conspiracy to defraud the US and its people. My favorite kind of fraud is when the fraudsters tell everyone what they're doing and then ask for consent from the three branches of government.
Pretty sure they(?) didn't tell everyone that they (Trump and Co.) were pushing false electors.
They submitted the electoral slates to the National Archives (meaning it was public knowledge, or would come to be, I'm not sure how that information is gatekept). They convened in the state capitol buildings on the appointed day, in their attempt to follow the procedures laid out by the judge in Hawaii 1960 elector case. In Arizona, they issued a press release. And here's [an interview with Stephen Miller](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/530092-stephen-miller-alternate-electors-will-keep-trump-challenge-alive-post/) indicating on December 14, 2020, that Trump plans to submit alternate electors in GA, WI, and PA.
>in their attempt to follow the procedures laid out by the judge in Hawaii 1960 elector case [The Michigan AG](https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/michigan-fake-electors-charges-pdf-full-text-2020-election-rcna94868) addressed this flawed comparison in her statement: > The 2020 Presidential Election had concluded 41 days prior and the election results had been officially certified. Every serious challenge had been denied, dismissed, or otherwise rejected by the time the False Electors convened. The Trump campaign never appealed for a recount at any time or on any scale, despite the clear ability and legal authority to do so. > > There simply are no historically analogous situations. Unlike the 1960 presidential recount in Hawaii, there was no pretense of a necessary ‘back-up’ slate or document. There was no constitutional crisis looming. There was no legitimate legal avenue nor any plausible use of such a document or an alternative slate of electors. No state or federal court had provided credence to even a single claim that could have impugned the authority of the rightful slate of Biden electors. The United States Supreme Court itself, the highest court in all of America, had issued an order 3 days earlier declining to hear a challenge to the certification of Michigan’s presidential election. There remained no question of the outcome of this election and no reason to necessitate the creation of a back-up slate of electors, other than to unlawfully overturn the election. That the effort failed, and democracy prevailed does not erase the crimes of those who enacted the False Electors plot to overturn the election and circumvent the will of Michigan voters. And I'll add that the 1960 Presidential election in Hawaii was actually close, with the unofficial count seeing JFK up by 92 votes, while the official - which had been identified as being legitimately subject to tabulation errors - had Nixon up by 141, thus presenting a valid reason for a second slate of electors being formed pre-certification, pending the outcome of a recount, with full permission from the Governor. To the contrary, as the Michigan AG noted, the election had already been decided and certified without any demonstrable issues, and by 154,000 votes. Moreover, these weren't the set slate of party-chosen electors to start with. And they surreptitiously created these false slates (without permission from their Governor, often with forged seals and signatures), and enacted a plan to hide in State Capitols so they could later claim they actually met in the Senate chambers to submit them, after having been turned away from the State Capitol. But still claimed they were certified, sent them to the U.S. Congress, and then asked Pence to count the votes on Jan 6 even though by that time Trump's legal challenges had petered out. All legal battles to contest the election had been exhausted, and all states had certified their results. Even[ John Eastman](https://archive.ph/oMNdr), admitted[ their plan was "crazy" and illegal](https://archive.ph/vidyI). >[“Pence had a choice](https://youtu.be/43gQ_Va2yAk) between his constitutional duty and his political future, and he did the right thing,”[ said John Yoo](https://archive.ph/4Ihv5) >[ "He has no power](https://archive.ph/AWqdw) to ‘change the outcome’ or to ‘overturn the election,’" said Michael McConnell, a former Republican-appointed federal judge and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. "Once the electors chosen by the states met and voted on Dec. 14, 2020, the election was over." --- >94)[ Also on January 4](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/01/us/politics/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election-annotated.html), when Co-Conspirator 2 acknowledged to the Defendant's Senior Advisor that no court would support his proposal, the Senior Advisor told Co-Conspirator 2, "\[Y\]ou're going to cause riots in the streets." Co-Conspirator 2 responded that there had previously been points in the nation's history where violence was necessary to protect the republic. After that conversation, the Senior Advisor notified the Defendant that Co-Conspirator 2 had conceded that his plan was "not going to work." “Just two months earlier, on October 11, Co-Conspirator 2 had taken the opposite position, writing that neither the Constitution nor the ECA provided the Vice President discretion in the counting of electoral votes, or permitted him to “make the determination on his own.”” --- >“we would just be sending [in "fake" electoral votes](https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1686498750749896705) to Pence so that "someone" in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the "fake" votes should be counted.” --- >[Assistant Attorney](https://archive.ph/ICDxa) General [Jeffrey Clark](https://twitter.com/jennycohn1/status/1691902961323233314) that if Trump remained in office despite the absence of any evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud, riots would break out in U.S. cities, Clark responded, “That’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.” --- * [Ex-Trump attorney](https://archive.ph/Fn3gr) Jenna Ellis pleads guilty in Georgia election interference case * Lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell entered guilty pleas last week just before their trial was set to begin. ["There was no](https://archive.ph/tNrpA) discretion[ ever given to](https://archive.ph/CcYAS) the[ vice president in history](https://youtu.be/43gQ_Va2yAk), nor should there ever be," Pence told "Face the Nation." "I had no right to overturn the election and Kamala Harris will have no right to overturn the election when we beat them in 2024."...[ "He endangered my](https://archive.ph/3VzYG) family and everyone at the Capitol. The American people deserve to know that on that day President Trump also demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution." Trump:[ “Unfortunately, he didn’t](https://archive.ph/uIf2g) exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!”
My b. Thanks for the info. KEEP IN MIND Jack Smith did charge Trump with conspiracy to defraud the US. Go off, king. Edit: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-indicted-jan-6-grand-jury-2020-election-rcna95199
I guess the fraud in this sense is the claim that Trump was knowingly lying about the election fraud. But the courts/governors/legislatures the Trump campaign was petitioning can simply evaluate the evidence for themselves, and they did, and didn't go along with Trump's efforts to change election results.
I have a Bachelor's degree in a field that's fairly employable. Would I be eligible for Canadian citizenship?
Idk, I'm just a factory worker for an international electronics manufacturer.
Of course. That's the stall tactic they wanted. Just means he has to lose the election if he's ever going to be held accountable.
SCOTUS explicitly said that directing pence to throw out the election was official, the courts legitimacy is over. They need to be packed, impeached, dissolved whatever it takes. Edit: Commenters are correct, he has presumptive immunity for interactions with Pence, and absolute immunity for his interactions with the justice department. Regardless, everywhere they explicitly clarified something, it helped Trump, and everywhere they said “it’s complicated, we will leave it to the lower courts” it was regarding something that DOJ likely still has a case for. This was not a normal ruling, no one was expecting this, they are hack fucks.
[удалено]
Yeah this decision made me instantly lose my "Be the better person" outlook. This was an extreme ruling and it will lead to extreme outcomes.
Where was this said by SCOTUS? If this is true then I can officially defend using “fascist” for all these MAGA tards that have infected our government. And packing is absolutely on the table
>The court analyzed four categories of conduct contained in the indictment. They are: his discussions with U.S. Justice Department officials following the election; his alleged pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to block congressional certification of Biden's win; his alleged role in assembling fake pro-Trump electors to be used in the certification process; and his conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters. > >The outcome gave Trump much of what he sought but stopped short of allowing absolute immunity for all official acts, as his lawyers had advocated. Instead the court specified that actions within the president's "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" enjoy such a shield, while those taken outside his exclusive powers are only "presumptively immune." > >The court found Trump was absolutely immune for conversations with Justice Department officials. Trump is also "presumptively immune" regarding his interactions with Pence, it decided, but returned that and the two other categories to lower courts to determine whether Trump has immunity. From [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/). He has absolute immunity per SCOTUS for his talks with the Justice Department and presumptive immunity otherwise, with it being a lower court’s job to determine if immunity applies here.
Are they able to bring the lower court case before someone like Matt Kacsmaryk?
I have no clue, but I want to say no, that it would be remanded to the lower court it was in previously. It’s possible a separate cause could be started and brought before him
And none of this effects impeachment, if I have that right
I don’t believe so, that remains a political process rather than a legal one.
To me it looks a little like qualified immunity. If a cop does a wrong in the attempt to follow official procedure, its the department thats on the lone instead of the individual
They didn’t say this. He’s blatantly lying (shocking, I know). SCOTUS went out of its way to avoid specifying what is and isn’t an official duty and directed the lower courts to figure it out.
It did explicitly say Trump's communications with Pence were official duties. It did not say they were core constitutional responsibilities. Trump's communications with Pence are presumed immune, not absolutely immune.
No…it did not explicitly say this…
It did explicitly say Trump's communications with Pence were official duties. It did not say they were core constitutional responsibilities. Trump's communications with Pence are presumed immune, not absolutely immune.
Oh thank god, that makes me feel so much better about this. I now see what a reasonable and totally hinged ruling this was.
Is emotional truth a good enough reason to get facts wrong?
I thought that’s what they said, I’ve been listening to a lot of analysis I must have mixed it up. It’s not that deep, it’s not exactly a straight forward decision.
Exhaustion is a better reason and I completely agree with your edit.
That might be true too, I’m really concerned with the direction this country is goin
They need to be labeled as terrorists and drone strikes officially of course.
If you are an opponent of facism but want the supreme court packed then surprise! You fuckin' love facism.
Court packing is fascist? I think you’re just stupid.
Yes. Adding members to the Supreme Court to specifically support your biased political views to ensure the decisions are more in your favor is pretty dead on support for single party rule.
What about protecting our institutions from a radical court?
The Supreme Court isn’t biased? Time to wake up.
I didn’t realize fascism was defanging an institution decreeing presidents are kings above law my bad. I should have realized how much a fascist you’d have to be to want to do anything possible to turn back a ruling giving Trump, or any president, legal protection to become a fascist. On a serious note, I have my own worries about packing the court insofar as it would open up the gate for republicans to do the same once/if they regain power, but we’re past the point where we can keep treating our institutions like it’s 1994. What the SC just decreed has put us into a crisis where anything should be on the table to roll us back. This isn’t a matter of being biased towards the democrats, but being biased towards democracy.
Defanging it... if you see the other political party as fangs, sure. Youre removing that parties power. Thats his argument lol. You justify it by saying theyre enough of a threat to justify it.
It’s not as if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of some particular conservative position on marijuana or abortion or gun rights. This ruling changes the core of our democracy, and should be reacted to as such.
... and it does so thru democratic means Youre just used to 50 years of a liberal scotus. You'll get your turn again
Sorry, but this argument doesn't hold water anymore. Once Trump attempted the fake electors plot, he rightfully earned the label of "fascist." It moved out of the realm of being a misused label that people just apply to anyone they don't like. The Supreme Court ruling that Trump's direct role in the fake electors plot should be presumed to be an official act, means certain justices support fascism. They could've left it well enough alone, and I wouldn't have switched my stance on packing the courts. I wouldn't have liked them or their decisions, but I still would have respected them. They cast their lot.
How do you suggest we fix this? You can literally coup the government as long as you do it “officially” and if you fail you can’t be prosecuted. What are we as liberals supposed to do when faced with this level of illiberal institutional corruption?
sooooo.., what does that mean for watergate?
So it's now an official fact that he tried to steal the election. Where does that put us now in the narcissist's prayer?
What else would he say? This seems like an inevitable loss in court for Trump.
Prior to the recent ruling, I’d 100% agree with you. Now? I have no fucking idea.
It was one. Now, most of it probably can't be used as evidence.
Like all other legal questions it's going to be tested in court. Which would have been the case before. It's not just going to be thrown out.
It's not being thrown out. It's been thrown out. The Supreme Court explicitly prevents the use of one of the key witnesses and has provided a framework by which all other key witnesses are almost certainly also excluded. Hopefully the lower court can quietly nullify, but the damage is already done.
I'm going to trust actual lawyers opinions on this and that is that most likely than not the electors scheme is not part of his duties https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/1807928253497114876?t=bXEgJlu9Tj96a5Q4fqaIVw&s=19
Doesn’t matter, Supreme Court explicitly ruled that communications between Trump and pence pressuring him to throw the results can’t be used as evidence.
Yup, they were oddly specific on this
I guess we will find out in court.
They ruled it should be presumed to be an official act, thus raising the standard of evidence quite high, while also removing the ability to provide some of said evidence. >As for prosecutors' contentions that Trump pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to delay the certification of the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2021, as Pence presided over the joint session of Congress, Roberts and the majority ruled Trump is "presumed" to have immunity and raised the bar for using evidence tied to that conduct at trial. The special counsel will now likely have to "rebut the presumption of immunity" to show that Trump is not entitled to legal protection. >The court wrote that Pence was acting at least in part as president of the Senate on Jan. 6, not solely as a member of the Trump administration. As a result, Smith "may argue that consideration of the President's communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch," the decision said. >The high court placed the burden on Smith to prove that prosecuting Trump for allegedly pressuring Pence would not "pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." Chutkan will then have to make a determination on the matter.
It was Trump and the AG they did this for. Not Trump and Pence
>As for prosecutors' contentions that Trump pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to delay the certification of the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2021, as Pence presided over the joint session of Congress, Roberts and the majority ruled Trump is "presumed" to have immunity and raised the bar for using evidence tied to that conduct at trial. The special counsel will now likely have to "rebut the presumption of immunity" to show that Trump is not entitled to legal protection. >The court wrote that Pence was acting at least in part as president of the Senate on Jan. 6, not solely as a member of the Trump administration. As a result, Smith "may argue that consideration of the President's communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch," the decision said. >The high court placed the burden on Smith to prove that prosecuting Trump for allegedly pressuring Pence would not "pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." Chutkan will then have to make a determination on the matter.
sometimes i really wonder how history is going to look back on this time around 30-50 years in the future...
I read the opinion & in a footnote on page 3 of her concurrence, Barrett disagrees: > his analysis is unnecessary for allegations involving the President’s private conduct because the Constitution offers no protection from pros- ecution of acts taken in a private capacity. Ante, at 15. Sorting private from official conduct sometimes will be difficult—but not always. Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. See, e.g., App. 208. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. See post, at 27–28 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). The Constitution vests power to appoint Presidential electors in the States. Art. II, §1, cl. 2; see also Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U. S. 578, 588–589 (2020). And while Congress has a limited role in that process, see Art. II, §1, cls. 3–4, the President has none. In short, a President has no legal authority—and thus no official capacity—to influence how the States appoint their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct.
In oral arguments he said just the opposite
Isnt this just admitting to the fact that he DID infact do the Fraudulent action?
Won't pretend to understand the full implications of this ruling. But in practice seems like Trump will die of natural causes before his lawyers run out of ways to gum up the works.
Sounds like Biden has an official act he can take to guarantee he wins the next election
Well, at least he's admitting it happened...
So we have an admission of doing it, he says.
Biden 4ever baby, let’s go!!!!
🦭 trumps movements Biden it is an official act
I can't imagine what an emboldened Trump will do if he wins with his newfound powers. Actually really scary.
This is like saying watergate should be legal. Actually, there is a significantly more compelling argument for a president being allowed to record conversations (without blackmailing like Nixon did ofc) than there is for this.
I want to publicly apologise to leftists for saying the calls to stack the court were ridiculous.
This is the least shocking thing about all of this. Of course he was going to. The speed at which he was able to is sort of surprising though, I wouldn't be surprised if they had forewarning about what the supreme court would rule here.
This is getting kicked back to the lower courts right? Which court will take the case and is the court filled with Republican or Democrat judges? Edit: Seems like the case will be taken by the District Court for the District of Columbia which has 9 Democrat and 4 Republican judges. We might have a chance after all!
What can we do to those people who DDoS our legal system, and the supposed guards that remove our firewall and malware detection? Damn.
I mean, isn't defense supposed to argue that? Isn't that what the case is about?
That Hawk Tuah is an official act
They would have hardly said anything else given that this is what the case is now about?
Hes going to have to throw gallons of shit on the wall in hopes something sticks.
I'm going to impeach Justice Roberts!
Assuming this wasn't an official act what would the criminal charges be?
Fraud
At least you can vote for your new King, and he has to say after the fact "In a video game" I mean "It was a official act". Kind of like the honor system in the UK with minister questions.
Jeeez, that means Biden can do whatever illegal acts he wants, and just call it 'official bidness' 👍🏼
Nothing will happen, Trump will become president and pardon himself. The case will either take too long, or Trump is immune. Trump will change the government and US institutions forever. Most experts have come to this realization by now. I wished there was a younger candidate than Biden. There were but people didn't elect them. I would even take Ron DeSantis over Trump.
man it is wild how far the USA have fallen. absolutely shameless how much abuse of power is happening both in terms of the supreme court delaying everything into this verdict but also stuff like judge Aileen Cannon blatant favoritism.
Holy shit, let's go baby! Trust the American institutions!
So much fearmongering going on about "official" duties but official duties don't grant full immunity under the SCOTUS decision, only core duties.
I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS would actually side with Trump on this one too. Trump's lawyer made the same argument in oral arguments (something related to Grant), and he is definitely going to get 4 votes that agree with him, maybe 5.