Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution
The Supreme Court weighed in on whether a former president has immunity from prosecution for conduct allegedly involving official acts.
Fox News Alert ⚠️: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution
- Thread starter Archetype XLIV
- Start date
A HUGE WIN for the country a huge loss for America hating democrats. funny how that works.
Still too close for comfort. Today's Democrats are doing eveything they can to remain in power and destroy our country. The bleaters just don't get it. They are too wrapped up in team politics, country be damned.
This is also good for Greed and Raoul as Obama now can’t be rung up for deadly Yemen drone strikes
Have you noticed how ugly Dems are? I think rage does this to them. And they don't even know why they're so angry.
I don't expect you deplorables to have the ability to think ahead on anything, but even still, I am perplexed at how you morons thinks this is a good ruling.
You realize that a president can now accept bribes for a presidential pardon and be completely fine doing that, right? Presidential pardons are an official act, so if a president can't be charged for an act as part of his official duties, then he can accept a $5 million bribe for a pardon. No problems with this ruling, eh?
You realize that a president can now accept bribes for a presidential pardon and be completely fine doing that, right? Presidential pardons are an official act, so if a president can't be charged for an act as part of his official duties, then he can accept a $5 million bribe for a pardon. No problems with this ruling, eh?
I've not read the opinion. That said, careful what you wish for/gloat over . . .
Remember, these rulings ultimately have implications for both sides.
Remember, these rulings ultimately have implications for both sides.
Sounds like the stupid idiot thinks accepting bribes is an official act. Goodness these libs get even dumber when upset and flustered.
You let him off the hook to quick. I'm also starting to think that he doesn't like you too much. He keep crying to @MichiganHerd to do something about you. WTF? 😂
I do know he used to never cry like this while I did. Now we've done a 180. He's the one crying like a little bitch, and it's not even about being attacked personally. It's weird seeing him act like this.
Whatever you do, don't make him shut the board down, damn it.
Honestly he's kind of correct, this board would not be good to stop by a few times a day if we couldn't laugh at baldy, greed and the confused libertarian. I just don't know if it's the head injury or mush brains performance but his posting(spam) is really in a state of decline. The whining about being mocked? Just another new low for him
Why would you morons challenge me on something I am far more educated about than you, which granted, is just about everything?
Since I know you won't read the decision, here it is:
Skip down to read the full paragraph on page 14.
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. 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 whetherthat immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.
In other words, the president's core constitutional power of pardoning is granted in article II of the Constitution (section 2 clause 1). So since it is his core constitutional power, his immunity with regards to pardons is absolute. He is free (to the extent of not being prosecuted) to accept bribes.
If he had changed his board name before I came back, I would have bet the farm that it wasn't him. But then again, his pompousness is still so strong, I'd have likely figured it out.
*too, moron.
I'm mocking you morons for saying stupid shit, yet you think it's crying? Remember when you cried about the words used against you on the smack board so much that you contacted Rivals about it and the former board owner multiple times? Crybaby.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
"The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive," he said.
Since when is a bribe for a pardon an official act?
<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/pD7YIQoUwgb9cnX3FJ" width="480" height="269" style="" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="">via GIPHY</a></p>
You got me on a typo. That cut me deep. I'm contemplating a self-banning now.
Pussy.
Pardoning is an official act. He has complete and absolute immunity while carrying out an official act.
Pardoning is a responsibility of the executive branch under the Constitution. Congress cannot criminalize his conduct in carrying out that official act. This isn't tough for people who know how to critically read.
Here is the dissenting opinion (again, I know you can't understand it so won't read it). Take note of the justice's comment:
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor wrote in dissent.
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” she continued. “Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable. Consider a bribery prosecution—a charge not at issue here but one that provides a useful example. The federal bribery statute forbids any public official to seek or accept a thing of value “for or because of any official act.” 18 U. S. C. §201(c). The Constitution, of course, does not authorize a President to seek or accept bribes, so the Government may prosecute him if he does so. See Art. II, §4 (listing “Bribery” as an impeachable offense); see also Memorandum from L. Silberman,Deputy Atty. Gen., to R. Burress, Office of the President,Re: Conflict of Interest Problems Arising Out of the President’s Nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller To Be Vice President Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 5 (Aug. 28, 1974) (suggesting that the federal bribery statute applies to the President). Yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution. To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability.
The idiot thinks bribes are official acts. Makes sense he's a Biden guy. 😄
The official act of a pardon is definitely official...Accepting a bribe is not.
Sotomayor's opinion.... 😂 😂 😂 😂
Sotomayor (a Trump hater) is crying the blues and suirtgunarm (a Trump hater) is crying right along with her. Sure, he can accept a bribe, but he would be charged because a bribe is NOT an official act. That's hilarious! 😂
Well, you know...Birds of a feather....er...I mean, rich.
God this chick is an idiot!
Yes, Bimbo, you will file impeachment proceedings on the Supreme Court.
Yes, Bimbo, you will file impeachment proceedings on the Supreme Court.
Last edited:
Oh, so I guess you know more than multiple justices, considering their dissent partially included exactly what I said.
You and Justice Sotomayor are seriously overreaching in your analyses.
Absolute is a worrisome word.
Oh, good to see you unwittingly agree with Rifle.
Here's the rub: how would anyone know or find out the bribe was taken? The Court has now ruled everyone can fvck off from even investigating anything connected to "official acts":
"If official conduct for which the president is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the ‘intended effect’ of immunity would be defeated."
This is the part Amy Barrett disagreed with. In fact, in her concurring opinion she discusses the issues with investigating....bribery!
This is what I was talking about in KY Jelly's thread. These clowns twist history to justify their decision. The branch they were most concerned with constraining was the Executive! Recall that the nation was founded because they were sick and tired of an executive of sorts (the monarch). Independent? There's two other branches set up to check the Executive. Now they've weakened both of their abilities to check the Executive from the worst of abuses of power.
It's common sense there should be immunity in official acts (maybe, I've always wondered if a modern POTUS orders actual genocide what would we do about it), but as always with this group the devil is in the details. Are the details fvcked because they really are clowns that twist history and law? You know, the bullshit effect mated to the unintended consequences effect? Or are they somewhat sinister? Who knows.
Lincoln according to libs woildbe tried as a war criminal. Sherman, Grant. FDR. Truman? Dropped two nukes. Bush. Obama. Norman Swartzkopf.
We won't ever win another major war.
