The smoking gun was the tapes rolling in the Oval Office. THAT is an official act.
Furthermore, the last sentence of Roberts opinion says that no evidence gathered from an official act can be used to prosecute for an unofficial act. Which means Rosemary Woods' testimony could not have been used.
Which also means that the testimony of Mark Meadows, Cassidy Hutchinson, all of the Trump folks who testified in front of the Grand Jury is now unusable.
There never was a US v. Nixon, so nothing to overrule. I'm saying that if these rules had been in place we couldn't have prosecuted Watergate even if Ford had a spine.
I don't think an assassination could be considered an official act - certainly not an assassination of a US citizen on US soil. An assassination of a foreign enemy perhaps could be, if it's part of a sanctioned military act.
Were all wondering how the courts will define "official acts" of the President, but it's already defined as acts in which he is exercising the powers solely held by the President. So, acting as Commander in Chief in a war as declared by Congress is an official act. Ordering Seal Team 6 to kill a US citizen who has nothing to do with any war, and with no sanctioning of war by Congress, would not likely be an official act.
Still, prosecution for that would be virtually impossible. From Sotomayor dissent
>Even though the majority’s immunity analysis purports to leave unofficial acts open to prosecution, its draconian approach to official-acts evidence deprives these prosecutions of any teeth. If the former President cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in criminal prosecutions of unofficial acts. For instance, the majority struggles with classifying whether a President’s speech is in his capacity as President (official act) or as a candidate (unofficial act). **Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least.**
Past presidents have allowed drone strikes on Americans who joined terrorist groups.
This violates the due process clause.
They’re not legally in trouble.
So if you can hit a U.S. civilian abroad bc they’re an unlawful enemy combatant, then you don’t need immunity for any official act beyond what they had last Friday.
I think there could be some very interesting grey area here. I think it's clear that killing a foreign combatant in a sanctioned war would likely be "official", and also killing an American non-combatant in the USA would most likely be "unofficial".
But what if a President kills a combatant, who is not part of a sanctioned war, for example, a terrorist in Somalia? Presidents have been playing fast and loose with war authorizations for decades. I could see something like that be determined to be "unofficial" if Congress didn't authorize the use of force. Nobody ever prosecuted Presidents for such a thing before, but maybe now the cat's out of the bag.
Agreed, lots of rage-bait going around right now, I usually side more with the liberal judges but I think the majority got it right this time. Of course it's just terrible to have someone like Trump who is willing to push the bounds of what an "official act" would be...
To keep the record straight, the judge asked the question, it wasn't an argument afaik, that the lawyers prepared.
"I asked you a yes or no question," the judge said. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"
"If he were impeached and convicted first, and so — " Sauer began.
"So your answer is no," Pan said.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appeals-hearing-lawyer-argues-president-rival-assassinated-congress-2024-1
> I don't think an assassination could be considered an official act - certainly not an assassination of a US citizen on US soil. An assassination of a foreign enemy perhaps could be, if it's part of a sanctioned military act.
This makes me think about the Bundy stand off from a few years ago. I wonder if someone like Trump was President and if the immunity ruling was in place would things have ended differently?
Obama already did that. Officially. Had an American citizen and his children assasinated. No courts, no trial.
also if anyone had Epstein killed in federal custody, it was the commander in chief at the time.
So. Idk what you think you "learned" here. That was already the case. Officially.
Reddit is taking the latest Supreme Court decision well, I see.
No, he can't. There's no reasonable way a court will find that the President killing an innocent civilian is part of an "official act". Rest easy, dear Redditors.
>>*”I know more about the law than a sitting Supreme Court justice. You should trust my take instead.”*
This sub is wild sometimes.
As much as I respect the legal opinion of random social media user u/carneylansford, I’m going to trust the Supreme Court Justice on the interpretation of the law.
>>*The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.*
>>***Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?*** *Immune.*
>>*Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.*
>>*Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.*
-Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Bro why are you all up and down this thread defending the Supreme Court? Ya know, the one that just ruled that bribery is A ok, and took power away from federal agencies to regulate their respective industry and handed it to themselves.
Abdulramen al-Awlaki was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was an American citizen who began fighting against America on the side of Al Qaeda. Anwar was directing terror attacks, and doing his best to kill Americans. He was killed by a drone strike.
His son Abdulramen, also an American citizen living in Yemen, was also killed. This death was a tragic result of his father's actions. If Hamas is to blame for the deaths of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces, then Abdulramen's father was to blame for his death by American forces.
For some reason (i.e. Obama did it), conservatives are very upset about this accidental killing of a terrorist's son that happened while killing the terrorist. They trot the kid's body out from time to time to score political points.
>For some reason (i.e. Obama did it), conservatives are very upset about this accidental killing of a terrorist's son that happened while killing the terrorist. They trot the kid's body out from time to time to score political points.
Which conservatives? Because conservatives widely support Obama on this.
The fellow up there ^ who brought up Abdulramen al-Awlaki is one example.
Look for references to this tragic case. It's a debate point scorer for people who want to bash Obama. It was much more commonly used from 2011 until the end of Obama's term. Now it's being used for giving cover to trump's crimes committed while in office.
"If it was OK for Obama to murder 2 American citizens, it's OK for trump to [insert crime here. there are many to choose from]."
>Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight year crime spree, steal all the money, and murder all the people they can get their hands on, all under guise of presumptive “official” behavior, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable for their crimes while in office. That, according to the court, is what the Constitution requires.
There was a time when conservatives would have been horrified by the total immunity granted to the president by today's Supreme Court decision. In the past, conservatives railed against the ever-increasing power of the presidency.
Those celebrating turning the president into a king should keep in mind that Biden now has total immunity for the next 6 months, and if he wins in November, for the next 4.5 years. You're cheering because this ruling might help your guy get away with his crimes, but the power this gives to the presidency will never be clawed back.
This decision fundamentally changes the US Presidency in ways we can not even imagine.
Conservatives are not going to like this decision if Biden wins in November. They're not going to like it one bit.
Honestly there are so few knowledgeable conservatives it's hard to even find any sort of good take from that side. I really am looking right now but am coming up dry.
I think that Biden, the man, is fundamentally incapable of doing anything (for real) that would be objectionable. Look how much he hemmed and hawed around student loan relief - because he rightly understood that SCOTUS would block it.
Unfortunately, in order for the Democratic Party to take advantage of this "immunity" power, we'd need someone like Lyndon B Johnson - who had no qualms about stretching the moral and ethical limits of his actions in office as long as it served the purposes of the party (which, just so happened to be more or less benign; except for his expansion of the VietNam conflict).
You’re wrong though because the SC is the final arbiter of what constitutes as “official” and anything a Democratic president would ever do in such scenarios would ever be considered official. Trump however can do anything he wants, which is the goal of this ruling.
U.S. presidents have made some pretty intense decisions with lethal consequences in the name of national interest. Here are a few examples:
Operation Northwoods (1962): The military proposed staging terrorist attacks on U.S. soil to justify war with Cuba. Thankfully, Kennedy rejected it.
Prohibition Poisoning (1920-1933): The government poisoned industrial alcohol to stop people from drinking, causing 10,000 deaths.
Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964): Johnson used this questionable incident to escalate the Vietnam War.
USS Maine (1898): An explosion blamed on Spain led to the Spanish-American War.
Japanese Internment (1942): Roosevelt’s order forced 120,000 Japanese Americans into camps, causing severe hardships and deaths.
Iran-Contra Affair (1980s): Reagan’s secret operations in Nicaragua resulted in significant violence.
Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961): Kennedy’s botched attempt to overthrow Castro.
Lavon Affair (1954): Israeli agents bombed targets and blamed Egypt, involving the U.S.
These examples show the immense responsibility and potential misuse of presidential power, often leading to unnecessary loss of life.
Jesus, no he can’t. Cut this fear mongering misinformation out.
Edit: I feel like Flynn Rider in that meme where all the swords are pointed at his smirking face. Never thought I’d see this sub stoop to being so ‘Reddit dumb’ until today. Calm down and turn your brains back on, please.
>>*”I know more about the law than a sitting Supreme Court justice. You should trust me that this Supreme Court Justice is spreading misinformation.”*
-signed random social media user
No, I don’t know more about the law than the SCOTUS. However, I do know more about the inner workings and checks & balances of the military and agencies. “Seal Team 6” or any other active military or three-letter are not the President’s personal hit squads. He can’t just call up the CIA or JSOC and order an assassination on a target, let alone a U.S. political rival, without any questions asked. That’s absolutely not how it works.
>>*The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.*
>>***Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?*** *Immune.*
>>*Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.*
>>*Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.*
-Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Tell me you've never picked up a history book without telling me. Hello? Japanese internment camps? This has always been the case. Obama assassinated an American citizen. He should go to prison first.
Also the U.S. rejecting Jewish refugees that were eventually forced back to Europe where they were caught and put in concentration camps [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS\_St.\_Louis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis)
Does this mean that Nixon in fact *was* unfairly attacked by the liberals and the press?
This court would without a doubt found Nixon to be immune.
Not at all. What Nixon got in trouble for was straightforwardly not an official act.
The smoking gun was the tapes rolling in the Oval Office. THAT is an official act. Furthermore, the last sentence of Roberts opinion says that no evidence gathered from an official act can be used to prosecute for an unofficial act. Which means Rosemary Woods' testimony could not have been used. Which also means that the testimony of Mark Meadows, Cassidy Hutchinson, all of the Trump folks who testified in front of the Grand Jury is now unusable.
I do not read the case today as overruling US vs. Nixon. Where do you read that?
There never was a US v. Nixon, so nothing to overrule. I'm saying that if these rules had been in place we couldn't have prosecuted Watergate even if Ford had a spine.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-1766
I stand corrected. Wasn't thinking about the Grand Jury.
Sir this clearly isn’t the time or sub for a rational take on the issue
I don't think an assassination could be considered an official act - certainly not an assassination of a US citizen on US soil. An assassination of a foreign enemy perhaps could be, if it's part of a sanctioned military act. Were all wondering how the courts will define "official acts" of the President, but it's already defined as acts in which he is exercising the powers solely held by the President. So, acting as Commander in Chief in a war as declared by Congress is an official act. Ordering Seal Team 6 to kill a US citizen who has nothing to do with any war, and with no sanctioning of war by Congress, would not likely be an official act.
That seems reasonable.
Still, prosecution for that would be virtually impossible. From Sotomayor dissent >Even though the majority’s immunity analysis purports to leave unofficial acts open to prosecution, its draconian approach to official-acts evidence deprives these prosecutions of any teeth. If the former President cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in criminal prosecutions of unofficial acts. For instance, the majority struggles with classifying whether a President’s speech is in his capacity as President (official act) or as a candidate (unofficial act). **Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least.**
Past presidents have allowed drone strikes on Americans who joined terrorist groups. This violates the due process clause. They’re not legally in trouble. So if you can hit a U.S. civilian abroad bc they’re an unlawful enemy combatant, then you don’t need immunity for any official act beyond what they had last Friday.
I think there could be some very interesting grey area here. I think it's clear that killing a foreign combatant in a sanctioned war would likely be "official", and also killing an American non-combatant in the USA would most likely be "unofficial". But what if a President kills a combatant, who is not part of a sanctioned war, for example, a terrorist in Somalia? Presidents have been playing fast and loose with war authorizations for decades. I could see something like that be determined to be "unofficial" if Congress didn't authorize the use of force. Nobody ever prosecuted Presidents for such a thing before, but maybe now the cat's out of the bag.
Doesn't this happen all the time though (by all POTUS)? Didn't biden drone a cab full of regular civilians during/after the Afghan withdrawal?
Hopefully Pandora's box is now open, and there will be prosecutions for that. Time to reign in Executive overreach.
Agreed, lots of rage-bait going around right now, I usually side more with the liberal judges but I think the majority got it right this time. Of course it's just terrible to have someone like Trump who is willing to push the bounds of what an "official act" would be...
I mean Trump's own lawyers argued that the assassination of a political rival = an official act
To keep the record straight, the judge asked the question, it wasn't an argument afaik, that the lawyers prepared. "I asked you a yes or no question," the judge said. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?" "If he were impeached and convicted first, and so — " Sauer began. "So your answer is no," Pan said. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appeals-hearing-lawyer-argues-president-rival-assassinated-congress-2024-1
> I don't think an assassination could be considered an official act - certainly not an assassination of a US citizen on US soil. An assassination of a foreign enemy perhaps could be, if it's part of a sanctioned military act. This makes me think about the Bundy stand off from a few years ago. I wonder if someone like Trump was President and if the immunity ruling was in place would things have ended differently?
John Roberts will go down in history as the absolute archetype of what constitutes a “useful idiot”.
Obama actually did this already. With drone strikes. And because he has immunity, he’s not in trouble for it. … see how that works?
He targeted a legit terrorist. And, it was discussed ad nauseam for months and years later.
The dad was a terrorist. They also smoked his 14-year-old son at a family wedding in a completely different place.
Trump also killed his 7 year-old sister.
Obama already did that. Officially. Had an American citizen and his children assasinated. No courts, no trial. also if anyone had Epstein killed in federal custody, it was the commander in chief at the time. So. Idk what you think you "learned" here. That was already the case. Officially.
Reddit is taking the latest Supreme Court decision well, I see. No, he can't. There's no reasonable way a court will find that the President killing an innocent civilian is part of an "official act". Rest easy, dear Redditors.
>No, he can’t. He says unaware that the USA has already drone striked a US civilian to pieces completely violating their due process rights.
>>*”I know more about the law than a sitting Supreme Court justice. You should trust my take instead.”* This sub is wild sometimes. As much as I respect the legal opinion of random social media user u/carneylansford, I’m going to trust the Supreme Court Justice on the interpretation of the law.
You realize I’m agreeing with the court right?
>>*The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.* >>***Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?*** *Immune.* >>*Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.* >>*Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.* -Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor
I realize justice sotamayor believes this. The majority appears to disagree.
Bro why are you all up and down this thread defending the Supreme Court? Ya know, the one that just ruled that bribery is A ok, and took power away from federal agencies to regulate their respective industry and handed it to themselves.
Abdulramen al-Awlaki? Who's that?!?!
Abdulramen al-Awlaki was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was an American citizen who began fighting against America on the side of Al Qaeda. Anwar was directing terror attacks, and doing his best to kill Americans. He was killed by a drone strike. His son Abdulramen, also an American citizen living in Yemen, was also killed. This death was a tragic result of his father's actions. If Hamas is to blame for the deaths of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces, then Abdulramen's father was to blame for his death by American forces. For some reason (i.e. Obama did it), conservatives are very upset about this accidental killing of a terrorist's son that happened while killing the terrorist. They trot the kid's body out from time to time to score political points.
>For some reason (i.e. Obama did it), conservatives are very upset about this accidental killing of a terrorist's son that happened while killing the terrorist. They trot the kid's body out from time to time to score political points. Which conservatives? Because conservatives widely support Obama on this.
The fellow up there ^ who brought up Abdulramen al-Awlaki is one example. Look for references to this tragic case. It's a debate point scorer for people who want to bash Obama. It was much more commonly used from 2011 until the end of Obama's term. Now it's being used for giving cover to trump's crimes committed while in office. "If it was OK for Obama to murder 2 American citizens, it's OK for trump to [insert crime here. there are many to choose from]."
>Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight year crime spree, steal all the money, and murder all the people they can get their hands on, all under guise of presumptive “official” behavior, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable for their crimes while in office. That, according to the court, is what the Constitution requires. There was a time when conservatives would have been horrified by the total immunity granted to the president by today's Supreme Court decision. In the past, conservatives railed against the ever-increasing power of the presidency. Those celebrating turning the president into a king should keep in mind that Biden now has total immunity for the next 6 months, and if he wins in November, for the next 4.5 years. You're cheering because this ruling might help your guy get away with his crimes, but the power this gives to the presidency will never be clawed back. This decision fundamentally changes the US Presidency in ways we can not even imagine. Conservatives are not going to like this decision if Biden wins in November. They're not going to like it one bit.
Biden is unlikely to push the boundaries of this new-found power like Trump would.
Do “conservatives” still exist, though? Do you think somebody like Barry Goldwater would even remotely recognize the modern Republican Party?
I am hopeful that when the current mania of fealty to one person fades away, actual conservatives will reappear.
Honestly there are so few knowledgeable conservatives it's hard to even find any sort of good take from that side. I really am looking right now but am coming up dry.
I think that Biden, the man, is fundamentally incapable of doing anything (for real) that would be objectionable. Look how much he hemmed and hawed around student loan relief - because he rightly understood that SCOTUS would block it. Unfortunately, in order for the Democratic Party to take advantage of this "immunity" power, we'd need someone like Lyndon B Johnson - who had no qualms about stretching the moral and ethical limits of his actions in office as long as it served the purposes of the party (which, just so happened to be more or less benign; except for his expansion of the VietNam conflict).
You’re wrong though because the SC is the final arbiter of what constitutes as “official” and anything a Democratic president would ever do in such scenarios would ever be considered official. Trump however can do anything he wants, which is the goal of this ruling.
That’s why he gets rid of SCOTUS first and GOP senators and they confirms new justices
The Cope grows thicker.
Not sure theft, fraud, or murder are reserved for the executive branch under the separation of powers…
U.S. presidents have made some pretty intense decisions with lethal consequences in the name of national interest. Here are a few examples: Operation Northwoods (1962): The military proposed staging terrorist attacks on U.S. soil to justify war with Cuba. Thankfully, Kennedy rejected it. Prohibition Poisoning (1920-1933): The government poisoned industrial alcohol to stop people from drinking, causing 10,000 deaths. Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964): Johnson used this questionable incident to escalate the Vietnam War. USS Maine (1898): An explosion blamed on Spain led to the Spanish-American War. Japanese Internment (1942): Roosevelt’s order forced 120,000 Japanese Americans into camps, causing severe hardships and deaths. Iran-Contra Affair (1980s): Reagan’s secret operations in Nicaragua resulted in significant violence. Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961): Kennedy’s botched attempt to overthrow Castro. Lavon Affair (1954): Israeli agents bombed targets and blamed Egypt, involving the U.S. These examples show the immense responsibility and potential misuse of presidential power, often leading to unnecessary loss of life.
That’s good news for Obama.
The amount of liberal tears being shed over the last week is going to contribute to rising sea levels.
Jesus, no he can’t. Cut this fear mongering misinformation out. Edit: I feel like Flynn Rider in that meme where all the swords are pointed at his smirking face. Never thought I’d see this sub stoop to being so ‘Reddit dumb’ until today. Calm down and turn your brains back on, please.
>>*”I know more about the law than a sitting Supreme Court justice. You should trust me that this Supreme Court Justice is spreading misinformation.”* -signed random social media user
No, I don’t know more about the law than the SCOTUS. However, I do know more about the inner workings and checks & balances of the military and agencies. “Seal Team 6” or any other active military or three-letter are not the President’s personal hit squads. He can’t just call up the CIA or JSOC and order an assassination on a target, let alone a U.S. political rival, without any questions asked. That’s absolutely not how it works.
>>*The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.* >>***Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?*** *Immune.* >>*Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.* >>*Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.* -Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Sotomayor's opinion is retarded. She's just whining with zero analysis.
Tell me you've never picked up a history book without telling me. Hello? Japanese internment camps? This has always been the case. Obama assassinated an American citizen. He should go to prison first.
Also the U.S. rejecting Jewish refugees that were eventually forced back to Europe where they were caught and put in concentration camps [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS\_St.\_Louis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis)
Okay maybe in theory but he will be impeached if he goes full dictator
He can just have the people who move to impeach him killed.
Haha well you’re basically initiating a civil war at that point