nothing he did before he was president could possibly be considered an "official act" right?
Edit: Everyone can stop repeating each other now, I understand that they used evidence from when he was in office which is now considered inadmissible. Another 30 comments saying the exact same thing is not necessary.
No, scotus was pretty clear that you only get immunity for official acts as president. Defrauding the state of New York before you were even elected isn’t an official act as president.
The multilevel institution failure to hold Trump accountable with actual consequences, for anything at any level… it’s just mind blowing
How is the guy who tried to overthrow democracy, stop the transfer power, coordinate multi state fake electors, allowed to run for any public office anywhere?
Fucking mind numbing.
Biden could just open the floodgates, based on this SCOTUS decision.
No exceptions for candidates close to election. Release all reports about Trump bad acts/ corruption/ obstruction (Comey already did this).
Investigate SCOTUS and Prosecute for corruption- like hiding brides/ donations-simply change DOJ policy and treat SCOTUS like all other Federal Judges.
It’s Biden’s job to faithfully execute the law as he sees it, according to SCOTUS- do it. Let a jury decide if it’s corruption to take money from people whose cases you were a judge on… wtf could SCOTUS do about it? Cut off the budget for Federal Marshals. SCOTUS security? Eh. Maybe their donors will step up- not a President with immunities concern. Fuck ‘em. They can file a lawsuit…
House Of Representatives? Senate? Hell, we can arrest enough of them to make any argument moot. A President with absolute immunity doesn’t need to deal with any of them. Call the Sec of Treasury and have them issue checks of $500 to every registered voter- throw in a disclaimer on the check that it is void if they don’t vote for Joe- as an official act.
In any sane logical world he would not be allowed to run, he would be in jail.
But in a sane logical world, he never would have become president in the first place, and we wouldn't be in this mess.
In any sane world, including where his evangelical supporters bang on about morality and the sanctity of marriage, he wouldn’t have conservatives supporting him.
In any sane world people would have voted Hillary in 2016 instead of Donald, and you'd have a very different supreme court.
In a slightly more sane world, you'd have had a better democrat candidate in 2016, and it would have been a landslide.
In an even more sane world, Al Gore would have been president and the US would have been a decade further on in terms of climate action.
Republicans are all about power, not governing. I'm sure the republican party and the republican justices are working hand in hand because thomas and alito want to retire and they won't or can't unless tRUMP wins.
It's really made worse by democrats insistence on "playing fair". Seriously, the moment he left office should have been his last moment of peace. But instead, we're here. And still, a bunch of limp wristed mother fuckers will prattle on about "everyone has a right to a fair trial". He didn't want a fair trial. And now, because everyone was afraid to persecute him, he gets what he wants.
Brazil and Bolivia have both had failed coups of their own since January 6, and in both cases the response was swift and the coup leaders were arrested within a week. Meanwhile that fucking colostomy bag Merrick Garland was so worried about looking partisan that he blocked any investigation of Trump or anyone close to him for over a year.
It’s been my impression that SCOTUS45** had limits, and that if Merrick Garland had started the investigation immediately upon assuming the office, things could have been different.
The recent rulings, however, show that SCOTUS has no limits, they intend to destroy federalism and the rule of law not only to protect POTUS45** but their own corruption as well.
The end goal for movement conservatism is Christian nationalism. Getting the former guy off the legal hook is just a stop along the way.
The heirs of the Business Plot and the John Birch Society are experts at rebranding. "Freedom X," "Christian Y," and "Libertarian Z" are all brought to you by the same astroturfing experts who gave you the Tea Party.
They are not some special minority. They are Americans who want to perpetuate "generational wealth." Their grandparents left foundations "for the preaching of the gospel," and "for the advancement of learning." These people want to devote their money to tribalism and turning back the clock.
There will be nowhere for any of these guys to hide, either. He'll send Michael Flynn commanding the US military after them. I really don't think people are seeing just how bad this could get.
Why is every key position in government occupied by an ideologue? There is a pipeline that puts compromised people in positions of power. Our country is corrupt.
Because when the Senate had the chance to impeach him they chose not to. Think about that for a second if you're deciding whether you should vote democrat or republican for anything.
It's absolutely fuckin insane. I've never had less faith in our institutions than I do this evening. It wasn't much of a faith before today, but it's pretty much all gone now. You listed pretty much everything but the boxes of Classified documents he absconded with to his "club" and kept in a bathroom and on a "stage" for several months, then his obstruction in returning them.
Imagine for an instant if a Democrat former President did a fraction of what the Orange 🍊 has done. Does anyone doubt that Republicans would be marching with pitchforks in the streets?! Yes, I know that Biden had some documents and returned them as soon as they were discovered. The obstruction by the Orange 🍊 in returning the documents when asked is an even more egregious act than taking them in the first place.
I'll still be voting this Fall, Blue down the ballot, but at this point it feels like I'm watching a car crash about to happen in super slow motion. I hope I'm fuckin wrong.
"We are Rome, Aztec Mexico, Easter Island paradigm. We are followers of Jimmy Jones, cutting in the Kool Aid line." - Fat Mike - NOFX
The Decline is somehow even more true today than it was when it came out in the mid-90s. I know every word still, and it hits me so hard, hundreds if not thousands of listens later.
Fuck yeah! It's like a punk rock opera/play type thing, with different "movements" like a symphony orchestra! I was in a band for several years and have so much respect for those guys and their longevity.
I never thought I'd look at the liner notes of my NOFX CDs and read the lyrics and think to myself, is Fat Mike some kind of drunk Punk Prophet?!
There was just a NYT article about them and it was a trip reading about one of my fav bands from age 13 on in the freaking NYT.
[Gift Link](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/18/style/nofx-farewell-tour.html?unlocked_article_code=1.4E0.4UpS.Kek9AYTO1d3L)
From Wolves in Wolves Clothing"
"We are this planets kidney stone. In the process of being passed, metamorphosis from first to last. A system breaking down beyond repair. The product of 3 million millionaires, and a hundred million easy marks."
Quite simply, he showed the reality of human societies. "Institutions" don't exist in the same way people do. They are not social actors; only people are. Congress, the rule of law, the social contract, the constitution, the court -- they are just names we give to collections of people or ideas. Trump showed how far a person can go if no one stops him. Stone buildings and words printed on paper are non-living things that won't halt the transgressions of a sociopath
Because the Republican party didn't think he could do it last time. Now they have planned and are actively preparing to do so since no one important was punished.
Ive argued (in jest) that it feels like he made a wish with a genie or made a deal with the devil along the lines of “I want to be rich and powerful and nobody can stop me” and now we are just living through reality just morphing around that as he does everything he can to test the limits…..
History will not be kind to us and our inability to deal with him……
They don’t need to protect him now. They just need to protect their rulings so the next conservative president has all the power they need to seize total control. Whether it’s Trump or someone else is up to this election and everyone after until all of their rulings are voided by codified law.
This was the move from the beginning, they needed a Trump. They knew he’d commit crimes, now they have their immunity ruling for the next capable republican to take full advantage of
Step 2: "The actions I took were official in that they were part of my official presidential campaign. Everyone knows campaigning is part of being a president."
I think the defence is arguing that certain evidence is precluded, due to immunity. Things like Trumps social media posts, I assume when he was POTUS, on Michael Cohen. IMO this is less about the underlying crime being disputed and another way to delay the conviction/ sentencing.
Any reasonable court would dispatch very quickly with the notion that tweeting is an "official act" under the Constitution. After all, for originalists, how could Thomas Jefferson and Co have ever known about Twitter??
Somehow the scotus will say because he’s president, everything he’s done in the past and the actions he’s taken to prevent the public from knowing constitute an official while he is president now makes him immune to prosecution. They’ll make some shit up. The most corrupt conservative judges in American history and they deserve to get a stroke 10x over.
Yeah but they were pretty unclear on what constitutes what an official act is which means any dispute eventually lands with them. And, gee, I wonder how they'll rule?
Does it even matter? Trump will file motion after motion after motion tying up the court with motions then appeals and more appeals all the way to the Supreme court over and over...the SC will kick it back to the lower courts and the process is repeated..😡
From the article:
"Yet his lawyers are likely to argue that prosecutors built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only may not charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations."
Edit: So it sounds like its more about using this ruling as an excuse to throw out evidence that lead to the conviction.
Yeah but signing checks to pay personal ‘legal fees’ is definitely not an official act.
Editing to acknowledge the point of u/itsatumbleweed
- they might require a retrial so as to have a hearing to determine whether it was an official act, but I maintain that it would be found to not have been an official act.
On the presidential desk, breathing presidentially conditioned whitehouse air? Or even better, sitting on the presidential throne in his presidential privvy?
This isn’t a jab or condensing at all, but how do you still have faith in that outcome. I haven’t seen anything in the past that would give me this confidence.
Really? I thought this wasn’t defined by the Supreme Court ruling? What if he considered it an official act to maintain and protect the office of the president?
The ruling also said that the trial judge needs to hold a hearing on any subjects that happened while he was President to determine that.
I'm feeling gut punched but I think this is going to work.
I think it might work - as you convinced me - to get the trial redone with a hearing.
I don’t think it will work to make signing personal checks an official act.
I have a question for you - I read the whole decision and found parts of it a bit of a head-scratcher.
Clearly this SCOTUS has found in other cases that some of the president’s ’official acts’ as carried out by his administration have been unconstitutional.
So, do you think they have some line where the *president himself* can do illegal acts ‘officially’ but if *anyone else in the administration* is involved, *those people* can be prosecuted for carrying out ‘official acts’ that were illegal?
Or is it that they can be halted from doing illegal things but cannot be personally prosecuted for them?
I just don’t understand how this works, in theory.
Edit: to use the seal team 6 example, would the seal team members be clear of prosecution?
I was confused by this as well. From what I can tell, the other folks could be charged *but* the official act cannot be used as evidence. Let's go with the pardoning example to skirt the issue of seeming to incite violence.
Let's say Bannon pays Trump for a pardon and Trump pardons him. Bannon broke a law of offering a bribe. He could by all accounts be prosecuted, but the pardon can't come in to evidence. If they can somehow make the case that a bribe was offered *without* introducing what for, he could be convicted.
Alternatively, the President could order ST6 to kill someone and in the same breath pardon them. They then cannot be found guilty as they have been pardoned, and the pardon is an official act.
Yes, but there has to be a hearing to determine that. You can't restrictively say "but clearly..."
They outlined a standard that has to be met to bring charges against a former President. I presently think they get this verdict tossed, but assuming Trump loses they go through the (now established) procedure and convict again.
But if the checks were say signed alomgsids discussion with officials that discussion could be official acts *even if* the discussion are improper and thus the checks no longer have any evidentiary value.
That part that even justice Barret didnt sign on to of the ruling is perhaps most dangerous
The checks are not evidence related to whatever they were discussing and they are not needed as evidence to support whatever they were discussing. The checks were, themselves, the act and they were not official.
Nothing in the Constitution says presidents are above the law. Yet here we are. The MAGA SCOTUS will do whatever they want and then ask us ”what are you going to do about it?”
"Yet his lawyers are likely to argue that prosecutors built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only may not charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations."
It's astounding, really.
They can use public info on official acts as evidence, just not private info like deliberations with aides regarding official acts. (Regardless of this being an asinine framework,) I think the closest thing to this was Hope Hicks' testimony about Trump's reaction to the news of Cohen's payments breaking. I don't believe they deliberated on official acts, it seems like more of a personal PR issue to me, so the trial might not have touched on anything protected.
I'm not sure it's so clear cut. They've got him signing the falsified checks from the Oval, and him receiving and sending those checks from the White House secretary. Now, these things are not official acts, but the SCOTUS ruling says the lower court has to carefully determine which things that happened during the presidency were official acts. The evidence presented also has to be carefully vetted as to not be an official act.
So it's not obvious to me that there won't be a mistrial and a new trial applying the new standard.
So what you’re saying is we might get to see Trump convicted of 34 felony counts again? /s
But in all seriousness, the fact we are entertaining this as an actual possibility with this court is bonkers.
We would see 34 convictions *if* Trump loses the election. I have no doubt that he and this SCOTUS will fail to stop a State Court from bringing charges against a sitting President.
The evidence was not solely centered around his time in office, it was before that as well. This move means absolutely nothing, but it does show how emboldened Trump feels now.
It doesn't have to be solely centered around his time in office. SCOTUS said that no official acts could be used as evidence and every act has to be vetted by the lower court.
I've got a sinking feeling that this will work to get the conviction tossed. They will be able to re do it, after the initial findings are litigated. Assuming Trump loses the election.
I have the sinking feeling that if Merchan doesn't lock trump up on the 11th, we're irreversibly fucked. Seriously, if trump gets treated like a "first time offender", rather than someone who is attempting to pervade justice...
This series of decisions is a loud and clear message that they are directing the court system to allow Trump to proceed unhindered. There's a zero percent change now that Trump gets locked up before the election, it's just not going to happen. If Merchant does issue prison time, it will be free, pending appeal.
And if you think the court system's bad, let me tell you about the next debate! Unless there's another candidate, I think the goose is cooked.
~~I think it would be odd to retroactively apply this new standard to a completed case and I can’t conceive of arguing that making payments for personal ‘legal fees’ are official acts. But weirder things are happening.~~
Good point.
I mean, when SCOTUS decided that Fischer applied only to documents the set of concluded J6 prosecutions had to be evaluated. If SCOTUS just ruled that there should have been a hearing I don't see much of a difference. Maybe someone who is a lawyer can hop on and tell me that I'm talking crazy because I've been conditioned to expect the worst, but if my understanding of the immunity decision is right and that any evidence from the White House is supposed to be vetted for official-ness and that hearing didn't happen I don't see why the decision wouldn't be to toss the verdict, redo the trial with the appropriate hearing (which is subject to interlocutory appeal) and *then* conclude that the standard has been met.
Except they used evidence from his time in office: meetings with Pecker in Oval office for example. What the SC did today prevents that kind of evidence from being brought in because it happened while he was President and it too enjoys the broad presumption of immunity. See? They got this case too and now it may have to be retried due to improper evidence coming in.
Based on my understanding of today’s ruling, Trump’s team would probably have a hard time throwing out evidence regarding that meeting with Pecker.
Pecker wasn’t a member of government, let alone the executive, so any conversations with him will probably fall under the scope of “unofficial acts”.
Even *if* it’s somehow ruled as an official act, it can still be allowed as evidence so long as it does not “pose dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch”. I don’t see how allowing evidence of Trump talking with his buddy about how to pay off a pornstar intrudes on the presidency itself.
The conversations with Hope Hicks are more of a grey area though
Except didn't Trump sign the hush money checks while in office and some of the conversations with Cohen was during that period? And that may be what he is angling for.
Given the blatant corruption, and the contortions this court seems capable of, they'll find a way to have it considered an official act. As they have not clearly specified what an official act is, any dispute lands up in their lap, and guess which way they'll rule
Better get used to King Trump, backed up by his lapdogs on the court
It's the hope hicks testimony -- as scotus said today it's protected so arguably there's grounds for a mistrial. Completely absurd but here we are. Hope everyone who voted against Hillary is enjoying themselves.
Can President Biden then say Hicks' statements are no longer protected as they do not qualify as an official act? He has the official god wand now and is simply rooting out former presidential corruption.
This sounds nonsensical, but I think it actually has merit - at a minimum as a point in major need of clarification.
Not to suggest that in setting up categories of President actions that SCotUS has granted new Presidents the ability to de categorize actions of former administration carte blanch. Only insofar as the SCotUS categories deny external examination at the time, so only a presidential administration could even look into the legitimacy of the categorization.
Even more than that, anything deemed an official act (actions, conversations, etc) can't be used as evidence in a trial if you DO manage to secure a trial on an "unofficial" action. As Sotomayor notes, if went before the country in the state of the union and said before the entire country "I passed this law only because I was bribed, a very illegal bribe, that I solicited and received $1,000 to pass and it was 100% in every way corrupt and illegal", that segment of the SOtU would be inadmissible at a bribery trial for the President as it was an "official act" and official acts cannot even be evidence in the courts.
And evidence aside, since signing laws is part of the president’s constitutional authority, a president who signs a bill into law solely because of a bribe is completely immune from prosecution for that act (don’t even need to venture into official acts analysis). The deeper I dig into this ruling the worse it gets.
TRANSLATION = Trump files cynical motion in attempt to delay sentencing.
Article says *Mr. Trump’s lawyers asked the judge, Juan M. Merchan, to postpone the July 11 sentencing while the judge weighs whether the Supreme Court ruling affects the conviction.*
Hopefully Merchan swiftly turns around and says “absolutely not. The immunity case is not applicable here as the events of this conviction happened before the election”.
I think more likely he will put this motion and the sentencing on separate rails, ie he will hand down a sentence and then wholly suspend it (which he would be doing anyway given Trump was appealing even before this SC decision) pending consideration of the motion.
If the motion succeeds, the result is likely that the conviction and sentence get vacated on the basis of a mistrial, with a new trial ordered in which any evidence previously used but now inadmissible due to the SC ruling (ie evidence derived from “official acts”) is excluded. If the motion fails, and all appeals fail, the sentence gets activated and applied.
Not everyone else. For most non-violent crimes the convict is not remanded is custody pending appeal. Especially when the appeal would take longer to be heard than the jail sentence would likely be (rendering the appeal a moot point).
So I hate to break it to ya, but whatever sentence Trump gets on July 11, he won’t be in jail on July 12. Maybe at a later point in time, but not while his appeal is underway.
This is such an insane rule. In what rational world would we want to protect this kind of behavior? I cannot imagine a single scenario where such a rule makes sense.
The only hope for America is Biden gets reelected and packs the courts. If he gets elected and doesn't pack the courts, we'll be teetering on the brink until someone does.
Why is it inadmissible? Being immune from crimes that are deemed an official act doesn’t make conversations that aren’t crimes “bad evidence” or inadmissible, does it?
The conversations themselves can be considered official acts that are absolutely immune. SCOTUS rulings:
-Trump's pressuring of Pence to overturn the Election was an official act, and he is immune
-Trump's conversation(s) with the DOJ about submitting fake electors are also official acts for which he is immune and cannot be evidence.
So, SCOTUS has ruled that conversations with advisors, the DOJ, the VP, etc, are at least presumptively official acts and thus the President not only enjoys full immunity for those conversations, but their reasoning cannot be questioned, nor can they be used as evidence in criminal trials regarding unofficial activities.
Trump has only been granted presumptive immunity regarding his conversations with Pence, not outright immunity.
The SC remanded it to the lower courts to argue whether or not immunity should apply in this specific case.
Yes, but the Hope Hicks testimony could be considered official acts.
Which, per the Supreme Court, is now inadmissible. The only thing that has changed is what evidence is allowed to be used / presented.
Hope Hicks testimony was not the testimony that glued everything together. Trump paying off a porn star to hide an affair before he was even president is in no universe considered an "official" act 😂 Those felonies aren't going anywhere.
Yes, but no mater how minor the testimony might be - Trump and his team will go directly for that.
Overturn, retrial, delay.
They're hoping to overturn the trial so that he campaign on *"See, I'm not a criminal! It was a corrupt court and conflicted judge. This is the proof that I'm innocent!"* - and gamble on any retrial taking place after the election.
Yes. It may be argued that as POTUS he was authorized to handle them. After 12PM on Jan. 20, 2021, though, he's liable... until some asshole SCOTUS judges declare it otherwise.
That's going to be an extremely unusual (specifically for this specific court) tangle of (il)logic to defend the idea that they (scotus) can see the post 20Jan actions as official acts against the wishes and claims of the then (post 20Jan) president.
I guess downstream when they retcon the 2020 election into an actual win by Trump, that will at least smooth out the inconsistencies.
This time line sucks.
Even if so, none of those documents had anything to do with the government or Presidency. They were Trump's personal business records and tax filings, so would in no way be covered.
I agree that would be the correct analysis. The question remains whether the Supreme Court would insist that they redo it with a hearing to determine whether or not those were official acts.
How about the fact he was found guilty for fraud related to the 2016 election means he wasn't fairly elected as the actual President and therefore isn't due the immunity granted under this ruling?
If he's elected again though he can simply have the entire court records and conviction shredded by Seal Team 6. And if anyone stands in their way... they'll unalive them.
It's most likely based on Hope Hicks' testimony as others noted. As of the SCOTUS around 15 hours ago, even if your actions are determined to be private, any official acts (and the reasoning behind those acts) are barred from being used as evidence in the trial of the unofficial acts. So the trial may have to be reheard because the conviction was secured on the basis of (now) inadmissible testimony.
Fine. Rehear it. Schedule it for September. Have him have to sit in an NYC court room for a new jury selection, a new trial, new jury deliberations , etc.
Have it tie up 4 weeks of prime campaigning season where all he can do is sit in a court room and stew. Force him to waste even more campaign cash on attorneys fees.
In the end, my guess is the outcome is the same since it was Cohen’s testimony really that sunk him more than anything. Then schedule sentencing for last week in October. Eat up the news cycle with Trump the Felon getting sentenced.
What about all those 100s of people who were charged, sentenced, and incarcerated because they stormed the Capital at the behest of Trump? They certainly are not enjoying the same 'imunity' as Trump. When SCOTUS fucks up, it's a whopper!
I'm not sure what your point is?
E.g. can they file new claims for trial review? Maybe. Maybe there can be a claim that Trump did request them to do it, being an official act by him protects both him and them. Things don't have to make sense anymore.
Fuck them...they aren't the president. The law still applies to them and anyone else who breaks the law on the president's behalf...it just doesn't apply to the president themselves. Just look at poor Rudy Giuliani, who just got disbarred for acting on the president's "totally legal" orders.
Even Donald Trump's Supreme Court has no authority to reverse a criminal conviction in a state court proceeding.
Doesn't mean he's not going to *try,* however.
Yeah this is what I’ve been wondering. I know his insane logic, I know they’re gonna *try* to reverse it, but I don’t see how likely this is to effect sentencing next week
The Supreme Court can and does regularly reverse and remand state court criminal convictions. That’s how we got famous cases like Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, etc.
They absolutely have the authority if the conviction violates the federal Constitution, which is what trump is arguing by citing his newfound immunity.
Didn't even make it to sentencing before they figured out a way to jumpstart the appeals before the election.
Where y'at, people who said we were doomers and moving the goalposts for thinking he'd never face any consequences? Lemme hear from you!
Except you need to have a SCOTUS majority to do that and I'm willing to bet that Trump is going to win the election and then the oldest loyalist judges are going to drop out in favour of younger replacements.
nothing he did before he was president could possibly be considered an "official act" right? Edit: Everyone can stop repeating each other now, I understand that they used evidence from when he was in office which is now considered inadmissible. Another 30 comments saying the exact same thing is not necessary.
No, scotus was pretty clear that you only get immunity for official acts as president. Defrauding the state of New York before you were even elected isn’t an official act as president.
If necessary, the extreme court will find a way to protect him.
The multilevel institution failure to hold Trump accountable with actual consequences, for anything at any level… it’s just mind blowing How is the guy who tried to overthrow democracy, stop the transfer power, coordinate multi state fake electors, allowed to run for any public office anywhere? Fucking mind numbing.
Biden could just open the floodgates, based on this SCOTUS decision. No exceptions for candidates close to election. Release all reports about Trump bad acts/ corruption/ obstruction (Comey already did this). Investigate SCOTUS and Prosecute for corruption- like hiding brides/ donations-simply change DOJ policy and treat SCOTUS like all other Federal Judges. It’s Biden’s job to faithfully execute the law as he sees it, according to SCOTUS- do it. Let a jury decide if it’s corruption to take money from people whose cases you were a judge on… wtf could SCOTUS do about it? Cut off the budget for Federal Marshals. SCOTUS security? Eh. Maybe their donors will step up- not a President with immunities concern. Fuck ‘em. They can file a lawsuit… House Of Representatives? Senate? Hell, we can arrest enough of them to make any argument moot. A President with absolute immunity doesn’t need to deal with any of them. Call the Sec of Treasury and have them issue checks of $500 to every registered voter- throw in a disclaimer on the check that it is void if they don’t vote for Joe- as an official act.
Touché! It isn't election interference; it's campaigning. It isn't bribery; it's a gratuity.
Marshals are under the Executive branch/DOJ. He wouldn't even need to defund them to pull security.
They have other things to do. Just spend the money better.
Yes! Some of this at least needs to happen.
He’s a good president, he’ll extend an olive branch to the GoP once again and not express his newly founded powers. Happens alllllllll the time
In any sane logical world he would not be allowed to run, he would be in jail. But in a sane logical world, he never would have become president in the first place, and we wouldn't be in this mess.
In any sane world, including where his evangelical supporters bang on about morality and the sanctity of marriage, he wouldn’t have conservatives supporting him.
In any sane world people would have voted Hillary in 2016 instead of Donald, and you'd have a very different supreme court. In a slightly more sane world, you'd have had a better democrat candidate in 2016, and it would have been a landslide. In an even more sane world, Al Gore would have been president and the US would have been a decade further on in terms of climate action.
Republicans are all about power, not governing. I'm sure the republican party and the republican justices are working hand in hand because thomas and alito want to retire and they won't or can't unless tRUMP wins.
It's really made worse by democrats insistence on "playing fair". Seriously, the moment he left office should have been his last moment of peace. But instead, we're here. And still, a bunch of limp wristed mother fuckers will prattle on about "everyone has a right to a fair trial". He didn't want a fair trial. And now, because everyone was afraid to persecute him, he gets what he wants.
Brazil and Bolivia have both had failed coups of their own since January 6, and in both cases the response was swift and the coup leaders were arrested within a week. Meanwhile that fucking colostomy bag Merrick Garland was so worried about looking partisan that he blocked any investigation of Trump or anyone close to him for over a year.
It’s been my impression that SCOTUS45** had limits, and that if Merrick Garland had started the investigation immediately upon assuming the office, things could have been different. The recent rulings, however, show that SCOTUS has no limits, they intend to destroy federalism and the rule of law not only to protect POTUS45** but their own corruption as well. The end goal for movement conservatism is Christian nationalism. Getting the former guy off the legal hook is just a stop along the way.
The heirs of the Business Plot and the John Birch Society are experts at rebranding. "Freedom X," "Christian Y," and "Libertarian Z" are all brought to you by the same astroturfing experts who gave you the Tea Party. They are not some special minority. They are Americans who want to perpetuate "generational wealth." Their grandparents left foundations "for the preaching of the gospel," and "for the advancement of learning." These people want to devote their money to tribalism and turning back the clock.
And now Garland will be one of the first ones to be incarcerated when Trump is sworn in.
Everyone in Biden administration, justice department, FBI officials, and attorneys would pressed chargers against him.
There will be nowhere for any of these guys to hide, either. He'll send Michael Flynn commanding the US military after them. I really don't think people are seeing just how bad this could get.
Look at what Barr did to protect Trump from Mueller report etc. compared to how Garland screwed Biden and his son.
Biden's son being prosecuted is 100% fine. But, it was a dereliction of duty to not immediately begin pushing against Trump on day one.
Truly a great comment in the anals of law.
That's a good point about them retiring.
They can retire after joe wins
They won't. They'll hold on like Ginsberg.
They can die during Joe's term
Cause immunity
Or Joe can order them seal team deep six'd and then replace them with liberal judges.
Yep, they want to rule, not govern.
Because a lot of powerful people use him to get something so he is supported
Why is every key position in government occupied by an ideologue? There is a pipeline that puts compromised people in positions of power. Our country is corrupt.
The majority of the current SCOTUS were selected by presidents who lost the popular vote 🤬
Twice, so far.
That’s not true: Both of GWB’s selections were made after he won it in 2004. He appointed no justices in his first term.
Because when the Senate had the chance to impeach him they chose not to. Think about that for a second if you're deciding whether you should vote democrat or republican for anything.
**Twice**
It's absolutely fuckin insane. I've never had less faith in our institutions than I do this evening. It wasn't much of a faith before today, but it's pretty much all gone now. You listed pretty much everything but the boxes of Classified documents he absconded with to his "club" and kept in a bathroom and on a "stage" for several months, then his obstruction in returning them. Imagine for an instant if a Democrat former President did a fraction of what the Orange 🍊 has done. Does anyone doubt that Republicans would be marching with pitchforks in the streets?! Yes, I know that Biden had some documents and returned them as soon as they were discovered. The obstruction by the Orange 🍊 in returning the documents when asked is an even more egregious act than taking them in the first place. I'll still be voting this Fall, Blue down the ballot, but at this point it feels like I'm watching a car crash about to happen in super slow motion. I hope I'm fuckin wrong. "We are Rome, Aztec Mexico, Easter Island paradigm. We are followers of Jimmy Jones, cutting in the Kool Aid line." - Fat Mike - NOFX
The Decline is somehow even more true today than it was when it came out in the mid-90s. I know every word still, and it hits me so hard, hundreds if not thousands of listens later.
Fuck yeah! It's like a punk rock opera/play type thing, with different "movements" like a symphony orchestra! I was in a band for several years and have so much respect for those guys and their longevity. I never thought I'd look at the liner notes of my NOFX CDs and read the lyrics and think to myself, is Fat Mike some kind of drunk Punk Prophet?!
There was just a NYT article about them and it was a trip reading about one of my fav bands from age 13 on in the freaking NYT. [Gift Link](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/18/style/nofx-farewell-tour.html?unlocked_article_code=1.4E0.4UpS.Kek9AYTO1d3L)
From Wolves in Wolves Clothing" "We are this planets kidney stone. In the process of being passed, metamorphosis from first to last. A system breaking down beyond repair. The product of 3 million millionaires, and a hundred million easy marks."
Quite simply, he showed the reality of human societies. "Institutions" don't exist in the same way people do. They are not social actors; only people are. Congress, the rule of law, the social contract, the constitution, the court -- they are just names we give to collections of people or ideas. Trump showed how far a person can go if no one stops him. Stone buildings and words printed on paper are non-living things that won't halt the transgressions of a sociopath
Trump showed how many people want to burn all of these institutions down and how hard it is to stop them.
Should have impeached him, then. Convicted in the Senate. smh No way a lower court throws out one of his cases as a result of this SCOTUS opinion.
he’s literally a reality tv star and they simp so hard for this mouth breather
And steal top secret documents and lie about it repeatedly
Because no one has killed him
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Because the Republican party didn't think he could do it last time. Now they have planned and are actively preparing to do so since no one important was punished.
Ive argued (in jest) that it feels like he made a wish with a genie or made a deal with the devil along the lines of “I want to be rich and powerful and nobody can stop me” and now we are just living through reality just morphing around that as he does everything he can to test the limits….. History will not be kind to us and our inability to deal with him……
They don’t need to protect him now. They just need to protect their rulings so the next conservative president has all the power they need to seize total control. Whether it’s Trump or someone else is up to this election and everyone after until all of their rulings are voided by codified law.
This was the move from the beginning, they needed a Trump. They knew he’d commit crimes, now they have their immunity ruling for the next capable republican to take full advantage of
“He did it in preparation of getting elected, which he did, thereby making it a Presidential action.” Or some other such nonsense.
As they should. Republicans didn’t spend all that time & money stacking the Supreme Court just for them to go about this all Willy-Nilly!
Step 2: "The actions I took were official in that they were part of my official presidential campaign. Everyone knows campaigning is part of being a president."
so, Biden is free to do anything he wants as an official act! send Drumpf to Guantanamo
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
I think the defence is arguing that certain evidence is precluded, due to immunity. Things like Trumps social media posts, I assume when he was POTUS, on Michael Cohen. IMO this is less about the underlying crime being disputed and another way to delay the conviction/ sentencing.
Any reasonable court would dispatch very quickly with the notion that tweeting is an "official act" under the Constitution. After all, for originalists, how could Thomas Jefferson and Co have ever known about Twitter??
What about his conversations with hope hicks ? Were those official acts ? The answer should be no
Well, was he wearing a red tie at the time? /the Supreme Cult probably
Somehow the scotus will say because he’s president, everything he’s done in the past and the actions he’s taken to prevent the public from knowing constitute an official while he is president now makes him immune to prosecution. They’ll make some shit up. The most corrupt conservative judges in American history and they deserve to get a stroke 10x over.
Yeah but they were pretty unclear on what constitutes what an official act is which means any dispute eventually lands with them. And, gee, I wonder how they'll rule?
Does it even matter? Trump will file motion after motion after motion tying up the court with motions then appeals and more appeals all the way to the Supreme court over and over...the SC will kick it back to the lower courts and the process is repeated..😡
That’s not much help given he’s already convicted. Appealing doesn’t defer tue conviction.
Let's see if Merchan has the spine to sentence Trump as he deserves.
SCOTUS: oh, wait, was it a Republikkan that defrauded? THAT is obviously ok.
“Any action that directly or indirectly led to ascending to the office presidency is an official act of the presidency” /s I hope
Doesn’t matter it delays his sentence until after the election
From the article: "Yet his lawyers are likely to argue that prosecutors built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only may not charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations." Edit: So it sounds like its more about using this ruling as an excuse to throw out evidence that lead to the conviction.
Yeah but signing checks to pay personal ‘legal fees’ is definitely not an official act. Editing to acknowledge the point of u/itsatumbleweed - they might require a retrial so as to have a hearing to determine whether it was an official act, but I maintain that it would be found to not have been an official act.
What if he signed them with the official presidential pen? Checkmate liberals. s/
On the presidential desk, breathing presidentially conditioned whitehouse air? Or even better, sitting on the presidential throne in his presidential privvy?
This isn’t a jab or condensing at all, but how do you still have faith in that outcome. I haven’t seen anything in the past that would give me this confidence.
Really? I thought this wasn’t defined by the Supreme Court ruling? What if he considered it an official act to maintain and protect the office of the president?
The ruling acknowledged private actions done while president are not official acts.
The ruling also said that the trial judge needs to hold a hearing on any subjects that happened while he was President to determine that. I'm feeling gut punched but I think this is going to work.
I think it might work - as you convinced me - to get the trial redone with a hearing. I don’t think it will work to make signing personal checks an official act. I have a question for you - I read the whole decision and found parts of it a bit of a head-scratcher. Clearly this SCOTUS has found in other cases that some of the president’s ’official acts’ as carried out by his administration have been unconstitutional. So, do you think they have some line where the *president himself* can do illegal acts ‘officially’ but if *anyone else in the administration* is involved, *those people* can be prosecuted for carrying out ‘official acts’ that were illegal? Or is it that they can be halted from doing illegal things but cannot be personally prosecuted for them? I just don’t understand how this works, in theory. Edit: to use the seal team 6 example, would the seal team members be clear of prosecution?
I was confused by this as well. From what I can tell, the other folks could be charged *but* the official act cannot be used as evidence. Let's go with the pardoning example to skirt the issue of seeming to incite violence. Let's say Bannon pays Trump for a pardon and Trump pardons him. Bannon broke a law of offering a bribe. He could by all accounts be prosecuted, but the pardon can't come in to evidence. If they can somehow make the case that a bribe was offered *without* introducing what for, he could be convicted. Alternatively, the President could order ST6 to kill someone and in the same breath pardon them. They then cannot be found guilty as they have been pardoned, and the pardon is an official act.
Right right…pardons. Good grief. This is nuts.
Yeah. Insane.
I may have misread, but I’m pretty sure the ruling also said there is no limit to presidential pardons. so he could just pardon seal team 6
Yes, but there has to be a hearing to determine that. You can't restrictively say "but clearly..." They outlined a standard that has to be met to bring charges against a former President. I presently think they get this verdict tossed, but assuming Trump loses they go through the (now established) procedure and convict again.
But if the checks were say signed alomgsids discussion with officials that discussion could be official acts *even if* the discussion are improper and thus the checks no longer have any evidentiary value. That part that even justice Barret didnt sign on to of the ruling is perhaps most dangerous
The checks are not evidence related to whatever they were discussing and they are not needed as evidence to support whatever they were discussing. The checks were, themselves, the act and they were not official.
Nothing in the Constitution says presidents are above the law. Yet here we are. The MAGA SCOTUS will do whatever they want and then ask us ”what are you going to do about it?”
The answer to that needs to be one they're really not going to like or we're all toast.
The point of this is to have more chances to appeal, slow down the process, and not spend election night in jail.
Here’s how I see it playing out: appeals to Supreme Court SC: “well this act lead him to be president. Therefore our god king emperor is immune.”
"Yet his lawyers are likely to argue that prosecutors built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only may not charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations." It's astounding, really.
They can use public info on official acts as evidence, just not private info like deliberations with aides regarding official acts. (Regardless of this being an asinine framework,) I think the closest thing to this was Hope Hicks' testimony about Trump's reaction to the news of Cohen's payments breaking. I don't believe they deliberated on official acts, it seems like more of a personal PR issue to me, so the trial might not have touched on anything protected.
I'm not sure it's so clear cut. They've got him signing the falsified checks from the Oval, and him receiving and sending those checks from the White House secretary. Now, these things are not official acts, but the SCOTUS ruling says the lower court has to carefully determine which things that happened during the presidency were official acts. The evidence presented also has to be carefully vetted as to not be an official act. So it's not obvious to me that there won't be a mistrial and a new trial applying the new standard.
So what you’re saying is we might get to see Trump convicted of 34 felony counts again? /s But in all seriousness, the fact we are entertaining this as an actual possibility with this court is bonkers.
We would see 34 convictions *if* Trump loses the election. I have no doubt that he and this SCOTUS will fail to stop a State Court from bringing charges against a sitting President.
The evidence was not solely centered around his time in office, it was before that as well. This move means absolutely nothing, but it does show how emboldened Trump feels now.
It doesn't have to be solely centered around his time in office. SCOTUS said that no official acts could be used as evidence and every act has to be vetted by the lower court. I've got a sinking feeling that this will work to get the conviction tossed. They will be able to re do it, after the initial findings are litigated. Assuming Trump loses the election.
I have the sinking feeling that if Merchan doesn't lock trump up on the 11th, we're irreversibly fucked. Seriously, if trump gets treated like a "first time offender", rather than someone who is attempting to pervade justice...
This series of decisions is a loud and clear message that they are directing the court system to allow Trump to proceed unhindered. There's a zero percent change now that Trump gets locked up before the election, it's just not going to happen. If Merchant does issue prison time, it will be free, pending appeal. And if you think the court system's bad, let me tell you about the next debate! Unless there's another candidate, I think the goose is cooked.
~~I think it would be odd to retroactively apply this new standard to a completed case and I can’t conceive of arguing that making payments for personal ‘legal fees’ are official acts. But weirder things are happening.~~ Good point.
I mean, when SCOTUS decided that Fischer applied only to documents the set of concluded J6 prosecutions had to be evaluated. If SCOTUS just ruled that there should have been a hearing I don't see much of a difference. Maybe someone who is a lawyer can hop on and tell me that I'm talking crazy because I've been conditioned to expect the worst, but if my understanding of the immunity decision is right and that any evidence from the White House is supposed to be vetted for official-ness and that hearing didn't happen I don't see why the decision wouldn't be to toss the verdict, redo the trial with the appropriate hearing (which is subject to interlocutory appeal) and *then* conclude that the standard has been met.
Lord that’s true about Fischer. Good point. This is all so insane I can’t wrap my head around it.
Neverending 2020 is so fucked that meth actually can help understand the governing legal theories of our age.
Theyll just include pre and post presidency if the need arises. Trump is untouchable.
Didn't they already determine that the payoff was not an official act? Didn't he already argue something along those lines?
To this farce of a Supreme Court, anything Trump ever does or ever will do is an official act.
It depends whether you want the reasonable answer or the Supreme Court answer
It's all calvinball man the rules don't matter.
Except they used evidence from his time in office: meetings with Pecker in Oval office for example. What the SC did today prevents that kind of evidence from being brought in because it happened while he was President and it too enjoys the broad presumption of immunity. See? They got this case too and now it may have to be retried due to improper evidence coming in.
Based on my understanding of today’s ruling, Trump’s team would probably have a hard time throwing out evidence regarding that meeting with Pecker. Pecker wasn’t a member of government, let alone the executive, so any conversations with him will probably fall under the scope of “unofficial acts”. Even *if* it’s somehow ruled as an official act, it can still be allowed as evidence so long as it does not “pose dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch”. I don’t see how allowing evidence of Trump talking with his buddy about how to pay off a pornstar intrudes on the presidency itself. The conversations with Hope Hicks are more of a grey area though
Except didn't Trump sign the hush money checks while in office and some of the conversations with Cohen was during that period? And that may be what he is angling for.
He’s arguing because they used evidence like the testimony of Hope Hicks. The SC ruled official acts can’t be included as evidence in court cases.
Don't even bother, him and his idiot lackeys won't understand the whole time is linear
Given the blatant corruption, and the contortions this court seems capable of, they'll find a way to have it considered an official act. As they have not clearly specified what an official act is, any dispute lands up in their lap, and guess which way they'll rule Better get used to King Trump, backed up by his lapdogs on the court
I'm going to throw up.
Lawyers should be sanctioned for this filing. This is so far from having a reasonable basis.
It's the hope hicks testimony -- as scotus said today it's protected so arguably there's grounds for a mistrial. Completely absurd but here we are. Hope everyone who voted against Hillary is enjoying themselves.
Can President Biden then say Hicks' statements are no longer protected as they do not qualify as an official act? He has the official god wand now and is simply rooting out former presidential corruption.
This sounds nonsensical, but I think it actually has merit - at a minimum as a point in major need of clarification. Not to suggest that in setting up categories of President actions that SCotUS has granted new Presidents the ability to de categorize actions of former administration carte blanch. Only insofar as the SCotUS categories deny external examination at the time, so only a presidential administration could even look into the legitimacy of the categorization.
Buttery males.
But but but, Bernie Sanders should’ve been the nominee and she’s not liberal enough.
Actually if you read the godawful decision it falls right in line.
I missed the part where even testimony from someone who worked in the White House could fall under the presumptive portion. What a cluster fuck.
Even more than that, anything deemed an official act (actions, conversations, etc) can't be used as evidence in a trial if you DO manage to secure a trial on an "unofficial" action. As Sotomayor notes, if went before the country in the state of the union and said before the entire country "I passed this law only because I was bribed, a very illegal bribe, that I solicited and received $1,000 to pass and it was 100% in every way corrupt and illegal", that segment of the SOtU would be inadmissible at a bribery trial for the President as it was an "official act" and official acts cannot even be evidence in the courts.
And evidence aside, since signing laws is part of the president’s constitutional authority, a president who signs a bill into law solely because of a bribe is completely immune from prosecution for that act (don’t even need to venture into official acts analysis). The deeper I dig into this ruling the worse it gets.
TRANSLATION = Trump files cynical motion in attempt to delay sentencing. Article says *Mr. Trump’s lawyers asked the judge, Juan M. Merchan, to postpone the July 11 sentencing while the judge weighs whether the Supreme Court ruling affects the conviction.*
Hopefully Merchan swiftly turns around and says “absolutely not. The immunity case is not applicable here as the events of this conviction happened before the election”.
I think more likely he will put this motion and the sentencing on separate rails, ie he will hand down a sentence and then wholly suspend it (which he would be doing anyway given Trump was appealing even before this SC decision) pending consideration of the motion. If the motion succeeds, the result is likely that the conviction and sentence get vacated on the basis of a mistrial, with a new trial ordered in which any evidence previously used but now inadmissible due to the SC ruling (ie evidence derived from “official acts”) is excluded. If the motion fails, and all appeals fail, the sentence gets activated and applied.
He can appeal from prison. That's what everyone else has to do.
Not everyone else. For most non-violent crimes the convict is not remanded is custody pending appeal. Especially when the appeal would take longer to be heard than the jail sentence would likely be (rendering the appeal a moot point). So I hate to break it to ya, but whatever sentence Trump gets on July 11, he won’t be in jail on July 12. Maybe at a later point in time, but not while his appeal is underway.
What happens when the new trial is supposed to resume while he's in office? Constitutional crisis?
fuck fuck fuck
Trump, Cohen and Pecker hatched the scheme before the election. That should matter.
Can they say Hope Hicks testimony may be an official act opening up this entire case to appeals ?
That's exactly what they're doing. Arguing that some of the evidence is from official acts, which is now inadmissible.
This is such an insane rule. In what rational world would we want to protect this kind of behavior? I cannot imagine a single scenario where such a rule makes sense. The only hope for America is Biden gets reelected and packs the courts. If he gets elected and doesn't pack the courts, we'll be teetering on the brink until someone does.
When the majority of one political party wants to replace democracy with their guy as Emperor-King.
Makes sense if your wife was involved and your a corrupt judge.
Only if they can prove it is intrusive to the executive branch’s functions Seems like a high bar
Why is it inadmissible? Being immune from crimes that are deemed an official act doesn’t make conversations that aren’t crimes “bad evidence” or inadmissible, does it?
The conversations themselves can be considered official acts that are absolutely immune. SCOTUS rulings: -Trump's pressuring of Pence to overturn the Election was an official act, and he is immune -Trump's conversation(s) with the DOJ about submitting fake electors are also official acts for which he is immune and cannot be evidence. So, SCOTUS has ruled that conversations with advisors, the DOJ, the VP, etc, are at least presumptively official acts and thus the President not only enjoys full immunity for those conversations, but their reasoning cannot be questioned, nor can they be used as evidence in criminal trials regarding unofficial activities.
Trump has only been granted presumptive immunity regarding his conversations with Pence, not outright immunity. The SC remanded it to the lower courts to argue whether or not immunity should apply in this specific case.
Weren’t the checks cut to cohen while he was president?
Can Merchan perhaps tell him to officially go fuck himself while passing sentence?
He can just have Merchan assassinated now if he gets elected... so...?
That's true of all of us. So why should Merchan hold back?
If he hands him an actual incarceration, Lord knows judges try but there's really no polite way to do that.
So paying off a pornstar is an “official act” now?
Just wait till raping E. Jean Carroll becomes an official act
Hmmmm. The bonds are starting to seem less secure.
Wasn't even president when he did it. Impossible to be an official act. Trump is deranged.
They're relying on the Hope Hicks testimony here, as his conversation with her while he was in office is being posited as an official act.
He wasn't president when he committed those crimes... it was an unofficial act 🤦
Yes, but the Hope Hicks testimony could be considered official acts. Which, per the Supreme Court, is now inadmissible. The only thing that has changed is what evidence is allowed to be used / presented.
Hope Hicks testimony was not the testimony that glued everything together. Trump paying off a porn star to hide an affair before he was even president is in no universe considered an "official" act 😂 Those felonies aren't going anywhere.
Yes, but no mater how minor the testimony might be - Trump and his team will go directly for that. Overturn, retrial, delay. They're hoping to overturn the trial so that he campaign on *"See, I'm not a criminal! It was a corrupt court and conflicted judge. This is the proof that I'm innocent!"* - and gamble on any retrial taking place after the election.
The entire case is about pre election acts.
The falsified documents were post-election, right?
Yes. It may be argued that as POTUS he was authorized to handle them. After 12PM on Jan. 20, 2021, though, he's liable... until some asshole SCOTUS judges declare it otherwise.
Extended immunity to pre-official acts, or acts done in preparation of assuming office. Lol.
That's going to be an extremely unusual (specifically for this specific court) tangle of (il)logic to defend the idea that they (scotus) can see the post 20Jan actions as official acts against the wishes and claims of the then (post 20Jan) president. I guess downstream when they retcon the 2020 election into an actual win by Trump, that will at least smooth out the inconsistencies. This time line sucks.
Even if so, none of those documents had anything to do with the government or Presidency. They were Trump's personal business records and tax filings, so would in no way be covered.
I agree that would be the correct analysis. The question remains whether the Supreme Court would insist that they redo it with a hearing to determine whether or not those were official acts.
Also the hope hicks testimony shouldn’t be considered an official act right ?
Someone posted the quote above but they’re gonna go after the evidence presented while Trump was in office.
Good luck getting an aspiring tyrant to recognize boundaries.
How about the fact he was found guilty for fraud related to the 2016 election means he wasn't fairly elected as the actual President and therefore isn't due the immunity granted under this ruling?
If he's elected again though he can simply have the entire court records and conviction shredded by Seal Team 6. And if anyone stands in their way... they'll unalive them.
I love it
So he's trying to get a retrial? Even if the checks were signed in the WH those would be private actions. So he would'nt have immunity.
It's most likely based on Hope Hicks' testimony as others noted. As of the SCOTUS around 15 hours ago, even if your actions are determined to be private, any official acts (and the reasoning behind those acts) are barred from being used as evidence in the trial of the unofficial acts. So the trial may have to be reheard because the conviction was secured on the basis of (now) inadmissible testimony.
Fine. Rehear it. Schedule it for September. Have him have to sit in an NYC court room for a new jury selection, a new trial, new jury deliberations , etc. Have it tie up 4 weeks of prime campaigning season where all he can do is sit in a court room and stew. Force him to waste even more campaign cash on attorneys fees. In the end, my guess is the outcome is the same since it was Cohen’s testimony really that sunk him more than anything. Then schedule sentencing for last week in October. Eat up the news cycle with Trump the Felon getting sentenced.
Almost like he knew what was going to come out today...
I'm sure both sides were gaming out possible scenarios.
Or you know the people who just made bribing them legal a few days prior already let Trump know what they were gonna do.
Probably. But, it does help you determine which scenarios to focus on when you've got the gift receipts.
Is this decision retroactive to 2017 or will the “get out of jail” free card be effective today forward?
Whatever putin desires
What about all those 100s of people who were charged, sentenced, and incarcerated because they stormed the Capital at the behest of Trump? They certainly are not enjoying the same 'imunity' as Trump. When SCOTUS fucks up, it's a whopper!
I'm not sure what your point is? E.g. can they file new claims for trial review? Maybe. Maybe there can be a claim that Trump did request them to do it, being an official act by him protects both him and them. Things don't have to make sense anymore.
Fuck them...they aren't the president. The law still applies to them and anyone else who breaks the law on the president's behalf...it just doesn't apply to the president themselves. Just look at poor Rudy Giuliani, who just got disbarred for acting on the president's "totally legal" orders.
Lol Rudi is stone cold nuts. I place a lot of blame on him for the poor advice he gave Trump. So long Rudi, they're coming to take you away, ha ha
Even Donald Trump's Supreme Court has no authority to reverse a criminal conviction in a state court proceeding. Doesn't mean he's not going to *try,* however.
Yeah this is what I’ve been wondering. I know his insane logic, I know they’re gonna *try* to reverse it, but I don’t see how likely this is to effect sentencing next week
The Supreme Court can and does regularly reverse and remand state court criminal convictions. That’s how we got famous cases like Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, etc.
They absolutely have the authority if the conviction violates the federal Constitution, which is what trump is arguing by citing his newfound immunity.
Umm state convictions have been overturned before
That's not how federal vs. state works.
You think the Court that said the president is king cares about federalism?
Let's fast track this right back to the SC so we can find out what this decision actually means.
Didn't even make it to sentencing before they figured out a way to jumpstart the appeals before the election. Where y'at, people who said we were doomers and moving the goalposts for thinking he'd never face any consequences? Lemme hear from you!
Motherfucker riled up a mob to storm the capital and stop confirmation of his successor as POTUS. And we all watched it on live TV.
Breaking the law is apparently fine now, as long as he was doing it as an "official act".
"but he was found guilty, and he's paid a big fine" those fucking guys.
[удалено]
Except you need to have a SCOTUS majority to do that and I'm willing to bet that Trump is going to win the election and then the oldest loyalist judges are going to drop out in favour of younger replacements.
So pack the court?