Rachel Maddow Warns That SCOTUS Trump Immunity Decision Is ‘a Death Squad Ruling’ | Video
Rachel Maddow Warns That SCOTUS Trump Immunity Decision Is ‘a Death Squad Ruling’ | Video
"The only fix," Rachel Maddow said, is to only elect presidents "from here on out who will not abuse the absolutely tyrannical power"
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't know why everybody is so upset about this ruling.
The trial court said he didn't have absolute immunity. He said he did, and appealed. The appeals court said "no, you don't have absolute immunity" and sent it back to thr trial court. He appealed again. SCOTUS could have reversed the trial court and appelate court. They did not. They upheld the appellate court decision, and said "no, you do not have absolute immunity. You only have immunity for official acts. Shove your appeal up your ass, we're sending this back to the trial court."
They ruled against him, folks.
They also said pressuring Pence to rig the election was probably fine. Not ok.
If he were legitimately convinced that the electoral college process was improper, it is his duty to pressure Pence not to certify. He can't be criminally charged simply for pressuring Pence not to certify.
However, that same act of pressuring Pence can be considered a component of election fraud. He cannot be charged for merely pressuring Pence, but the act of pressuring Pence can be used as evidence of that wider fraud. The trial court is free to decide that the wider fraud is not an official act.
What? His duty?
The VP's role is ceremonial. He counts the votes and that's it. He has zero power in the constitution to deny certification. The guy is on the ballot too FFS.
You know that's bullshit.
What the vice president's duty is is not subjective. It's prescribed in the constitution and clear as day. Donald Trump's specious interpretation of his role is irrelevant.
Using that as evidence would fall under questioning his motivation and intent. That's why the language about not being able to do that is in the decision.
Take conspiracy for example. The elements of conspiracy are:
-
Two or more people agreed to commit a crime
-
All conspirators had the specific intent to commit the crime
-
At least one of the conspirators committed an overt act
Trump conspires with false electors to rig the election. Trump's is immune to charges stemming from his conversation with Pence, but he is not immune to charges of conspiring with false electors. His communication with Pence cannot be considered evidence of intent (#2), But it can be the overt act (#3) of the conspiracy.
The courts can't even raise issue 2. That's what you're missing. Courts aren't allowed to question the President's intent.
How can you prove conspiracy if you can't prove that all conspirators intended to commit a crime?
They absolutely can question intent. They just can't use an "official act" as evidence of intent. They can use all the "unofficial acts" they want to demonstrate intent. And, once they decide that the bribe was an unofficial act, the door is opened to use it for intent as well.
-
I feel like it is actually not his duty to be the judge of his own election and without any evidence attempt to subvert the election. And maybe, for him to not be in trouble for the actions he took, he should present a shred of evidence to support his actions. Because either he is right and there is evidence, he is evil and is desperately trying to do everything the founding fathers tried to prevent, or he is mentally ill. I feel like it's a combo of the last two and the country needs protection against that.
His position would have to have proof to back it... Otherwise a president can be "convinced" of anything convenient and be immune from everything. It is a stupid position.
You reversed the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecutor - not the accused president - who has to do the proving.
Burden of proof applies to the legal system, sure...I am saying he would have to prove he was "convinced"...like if I shoot someone in self defense, I have to prove there was a threat to my person instead of me not liking their hat. It is proving my thought process leading up to the event.
The upsetting thing is that we think all Presidents should be accountable for their official acts as well as their unofficial ones. We believe that nobody should ever be above the law.
As long as the law polices itself, those in it will always view themselves as above it.
I feel like "official acts" would be something like, say, if say a former president died while the US military was attempting to secure confidential documents being stored at a golf resort, the sitting president wouldn't be charged with murder, however, if you were to say, incite a riot and Order an elected official to defy election results to push the election that you clearly lost in your direction, you would not be protected. Since you are working in your own interests, not the interests of the country.
The immunity the court is talking about means they can't be charged with murder for sending troops to war. Such an act is not "above the law". The law specifically authorizes the president to perform such an act.
The legal remedy for a president who improperly sending troops to war is impeachment, not a criminal charge.
The president's immunity extends only to those acts that he is specifically authorized by law to perform. Those are "official" acts. The acts that Trump is accused of are well outside the scope of his former office. The trial court is going to burn his ass. SCOTUS didn't save him.
Even the dissenting supreme court justices stated the opposite of what you're spinning.
No.
Oh they're well aware that they're blatantly lying. Chuds don't argue in good faith.
I'm not sure they defined what an official act is yet. So I assume that will be challenged by Trump in the lower courts and make it's way up to the scouts. And based on this season's decisions, I would assume they find in favor of Trump.
While not explaining what an "official act" is. Every trial involving Trump is severely hamstrung right now because they'll have to litigate whether or not every single crime was an "official act."
Biden could just declare Trump or whoever an enemy of the state then "officially" drone strike them and he'd probably die of old age before any courts untangled that mess.
I wonder if Watergate would have been an official act according to this new doctrine.
It definitely would have been called that, absolutely.
If swiping documents and selling them to foreign governments is an official act, and the Court seems to believe it should be assumed that, then i don't see why not.
The one act outside of the explicit constitutional powers that they gave absolute immunity to was him communicating with his Justice Department. So it 100% would be.
Yes! You understand it now! SC could have defined official acts, but they said let the court decide what an official act is on a case by case basis. They ruled against Trump's favor.
You also missed the part where SCOTUS said official acts can't be admitted as evidence. So what if a President gets $5B from some company so regulators look the other way. A jury would only hear, at best, that a President received money for an act that never occurred.
The court only has to "presume" it was an official act. That presumption is rebuttable. The prosecutor would present an argument that such a bribe was not an "official" act; the judge is free to accept that argument.
In ordinary situations, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty. When you're the president, according to SCOTUS, it's presumed that the law doesn't even apply to you because of immunity. And proving that it applies to you requires proving that what you did was or was not a nebulously defined "official act."
This ruling will make it virtually impossible to convict a former president of anything.
The official act is telling a department to give special treatment to a company. That's out of bounds for trial.
That is presumptively out of bounds for trial. That is a rebuttable presumption.
The ruling specified he was absolutely immune for conversations with his Justice Department officials, who would either be the people he was instructing to not act or a pretty exact match to whatever other department is being told not to act.
Funny, because Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor and the other two dissents disagree and specifically warned it will be used to execute political rivals.
But you'd know better, I'm sure.
They said he has unquestionable absolute immunity for his uses of any power delegated in the constitution. That's why in Sotomayor's dissent she picks these three examples:
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
Those are all powers directly derived from article 2 of the constitution, and their use is totally unquestionable by courts according to the majority's ruling now. This also includes an incredibly ambigous phrase "to faithfully execute the nation's laws" which the majority was interpreting as allowing him to do so many things without any question even Barrett dissented to that part.
And it goes further, anything the president generally has the power to do but is not specifically a constitutional power, he gets presumed immunity for.
This is a victory for Trump. They gave Trump everything he asked for and more. And that's not my opinion, that's what Sotomayor herself said in her dissent.
I suggest you read both hers and Jackson's dissent, this is a horrific ruling.
That's not true. The Constitution makes people of office take an oath to uphold it. You cannot commit crimes and say it was in an official capacity. That's the dumbest take in the world to think presidents can now commit all the crime they want.
I agree, but 6 of the 9 justices of the supreme court don't apparently. It's quite disturbing. Any use of powers delegated to the president in the constitution including thing like use of the military and pardons, is beyond any question according to this ruling.
That's not true whatsoever. Balant lie.
Read the ruling. They're quite clear about the absolute immunity for any use of executive powers granted by the constitution. That includes things like being commander in chief of the military, powers of pardon, appointing and firing of officials, and more! I even linked it for you to read. Don't have to take my word for it. And if you can't figure out the implications of the ruling read justice Sotomayor's and justice Jackson's dissents.
Oh yeah so you'll believe the minority opinion but not the majority. Gotcha. No wonder you're confused.
The majority are the ones who said that any use of constitutional presidential powers creates absolute immunity. All the dissenters are doing is pointing out the obvious implications and saying why the majority is wrong to create that immunity more eloquently than I can. You are the one who is confused. Or more likely, just arguing in bad faith. But just in case,
It's on the very first page of the majority ruling, here you go:
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts
Seperately from the absolute immunity, any powers not delegated in the constitution (official acts they call it), have presumptive immunity. Uses of specifically delegated constitutional powers, like the military, have absolute immunity. If its an ability delegated to him in the constitution, the majority ruling says that cannot be questioned. They say neither by themselves or congressional laws. Only use of powers not delegated in the constitution can the court even begin to question if it was an "official act."
The majority says something along the lines of "oh this is just a little immunity we didn't give turmp everything he asked for." I have no idea why they can write that with a straight face. Besides the fact that giving any criminal immunity to the president is totally antithetical to the founding principles of our country, they in fact have given him everything he asked for. Trump himself was arguing if he was impeached for something then he should be able to be criminally liable still. But now thanks to the supreme court conservative justices, for the vast majority of the scariest things a president can do, like the command the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of officials, he couldn't be held criminally liable even if he was impeached. It was more than Trump asked for. They may have even managed to torpedo both of his state criminal cases.
The Supreme Court majority is just so worried that poor president's will get harassed by prosecutors afterwards? Good! He should be afraid of breaking the law, just like everyone else. And if that can be proven in a court of law, he should go to jail, just like everyone else. The supreme court has now elevated the president above the rule of law and abdicated the responsibilities of the judiciary branch.
What do you think “immunity” means in this context?
You don’t get immunity for legal acts. The supreme court didn’t just rule that legal acts committed by a president cannot be prosecuted. That would be fucking stupid. Legal acts done by anyone can’t be prosecuted ever. That’s what it means to be “legal”. Immunity applies to illegal acts.
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
In all three of those cases, the question as to whether those actions are required or permitted under the law is put to a judge, and that judge is free to rule that they are not. The trial judge is free to rule that they are "unofficial" acts, and deny that immunity.
This ruling is terrible for Trump.
Use of the military is delegated to him under article 2, his use of that power cannot be questioned. The ruling says what you just described cannot happen. He has absolute immunity for anything he uses that power for. Appointing or firing officials? Article 2, cannot be questioned. Granting pardons? Article 2, cannot be questioned, doesn't matter why he did it.
Only if the president is using some ability or power not specifically delegated in the constitution can a judge even began to decide if it counts as an official act. And then if that does, not quite as good as absolute immunity, but still presumptive immunity.
And it gets even worse! Anything the president did as an "official act" cannot be used against him in court as evidence. So much of the evidence in all the cases he has can no longer be used! If any of the charges survive at all in the first place given this ridiculously broad immunity ruling. This ruling is so bad it may even help him get out his state charges unexpectedly. There's a slim chance some of the charges may live on, but the funny thing about the ruling is it gives even more criminal immunity to some the scariest things the president has the power to do.
If this ruling is terrible for Trump, why does the dissent start out by saying this gives everything Trump asked for and more?!
I'm sorry, but you're just incorrect. Please just read the dissents from the actual constitutional scholars in the ruling though instead of my dumb internet comments trying to summarize. They explain it all much better and more thoroughly.
The first dissent starts on page 68 of the document I linked, and with the very large margins is a surprisingly quick read.
Use of the military is delegated to him under article 2, his use of that power cannot be questioned.
The military is strictly limited on what kind of operations it is allowed to perform. The commander and operators of Seal Team 6 would be prosecuted if they obeyed an unlawful order, even if it came from their Commander in Chief. The president does not have the power to order Seal Team 6 to violate the Posse Comitatus act. The President does not have the power to violate his political rival's right to due process. A prosecutor can argue that such an egregious order falls well outside the scope of the office, and constitutes an "unofficial act". The courts are free to rule accordingly.
The dissents are reading far more into the majority opinion than is actually there. I suggest you read the majority opinion a little more closely.
A prosecutor can argue that such an egregious order falls well outside the scope of the office, and constitutes an "unofficial act".
Incorrect, according to this ruling, his use of the military has absolute immunity. It doesn't matter what he's doing with it, they can't even question if it's an official act or not. That only factors in when using powers not delegated in the constitution. You do point out some more absurdities in the majority's ruling though, theoretically a court could hold troops accountable for unlawful orders but could not hold the executive accountable for giving them. Moot point though, who's bringing the charges against the troops in this situation? President has absolute criminal immunity for hiring and firing, just fire any prosecutors whether that's justice department or military justice if they try to do so.
The president does not have the power to order Seal Team 6 to violate the Posse Comitatus act.
Null and void, they specifically state that not only the court doesn't have the power to question, neither does congress. The supreme court just made posse comitatus toilet paper.
The only way out for this mess is replacing the justices or a constitutional ammendment that's says, yes we still have the rule of law for everyone, including the president.
And yes I read the whole thing. And if the majority can't see what they have enabled they're stupid. But I don't think it's stupidity, they're smart people. That only leaves malice. Or some very different political ideals than I hold about the rule of law at least.
He could just preemptively/promise a pardon to all of seal team 6 / anyone in the military carrying out his orders.
You're right! Even easier. Article 2 power use again, cannot be questioned. Pre emptive pardons for everyone involved. We were all worried about the possibility of Trump self pardoning, but this court has made that possibility seem quaint in comparison to what they've bestowed.
As president, I officially declare Trump a terrorist and award a $5 million bounty for his head on a copper platter.
Best I can do is his clogged up heart on a plastic cutting board from IKEA..
[They] only have immunity for official acts
"Only". This is exactly why they issued such a nebulous decision, so people like you will say, "Look! It's not actually unlimited!" The only act they give any specific answer for is the president's right to prosecute anyone they want without justification, which they say is a-ok. Everything else they sent back to the district courts, not to "shove it up his ass", but because they are the "court of final review and not first view". In other words, they'll deem it all "official acts" later, when (they hope) Trump is in office and this pony show won't matter anymore.
My understanding is that immunity for official acts WOULD cover an airstrike on Trump, or a death squad assassination.
But that possibly the speech in front of the capital where he said "we're going to go fight like hell to take our country back" is most likely NOT an official act? Maybe they could hold him accountable for that since it was NOT communication with one of his departments?
Interested in any clarification anyone can offer.
the ruling is basically "the courts get to decide what an 'official act' is and that 'official acts' can't be used in court, eg courts get to decide without jury nor law what is legal or illegal for the president to do and open the door of barring whatever evidence they please from lower courts" aka, they created a loophole in the constitution the size of an ICBM that the courts can drive whatever they want through.
The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.
The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” Ante, at 14. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. Finally, the majority declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. See ante, at 30–32. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical.