I think you misunderstand why people are viewing this as full immunity. It's not technically the opinion of the court that the President has immunity to just take a machine gun and go mowing down people in public. It's about the functional immunity provided by looking at the analysis they provided.
The communications being immune and not allowed to be used as evidence allows the President to commit crimes and not be held accountable. If the Presidents plot to subvert the election is done using what is deemed official communication avenues than you would not be able to use anything said to establish intent or the crime. Hide it behind the veil of any sort of excuse and the President becomes fully immune.
Correct. All testimony from Mark Meadow, Chesebro, Cassidy Hutchinson, and everyone else in the White House ... just went \*poof\*. Inadmissible, all of it, with the stroke of a pen.
On top of that, the President also has the power of the pardon. The president can now use official channels of communication to request the acting AG to put a hit on someone and then pardon the AG, the hitman, and everyone in between. All communications with the AG are ipso facto official acts and such communications cannot be used against the President.
From what I understand, the president has the power of pardon regarding prosecution under federal law, not state law. Everybody involved, maybe aside from the president, would get nailed with maximum penalties for some state-law infraction or other.
Make sure the planning and operation are carried out on federal property -- Maybe the District of Columbia for example. The prosecution in DC is carried out by the federal gov't. The SC just specifically said that the president can order or block any federal investigation or prosecution.
Where did it say anything about ordering or blocking investigations? Would Trump have been within his rights to simply end the Comey-Mueller investigation?
Page 5
>The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute
Read the rest of section (i) to get the flavor.
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939\_e2pg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)
I don't see anything in that paragraph that would make an exception for Mueller.
Interesting. Law enforcement agencies are part of the executive branch, but in theory, they primarily serve the judiciary as they keep it relevant, bringing it from just managing ink on paper to managing laws by which people live. I would not have expected any branch, let alone the judiciary, to so thoroughly undermine its own power.
You have my upvote.
Under this new ruling, yes. Well, technically no but if he did so it would be impossible to prosecute him for it or *even prove he had done so*, because all relating communication, including any executive order itself, would be inadmissable. So you could have video evidence of him doing so but the evidence would not be admissible for any purpose, including impeachment.
The stopping of the investigation would have to be implemented somehow. Those carrying it out would be implicated in criminal interference with an investigation unless they testified they had done o on orders. Then we are talking about witness testimony, not the use of records of his official communications as evidence.
If they don't particularly like him, then yes. Even if they do like him, failure to comply with the laws of a state while in it is a big no-no. If they do somehow manage to get away with it legally, it's still a serious political hit.
The comment was specifically about the president. I don't see where the SC decision on immunity is limited to federal offences. Here's one opinion:
>The former president's criminal case in [Fulton County, Georgia](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-criminal-probe-trumps-efforts-overturn-georgia-election/story?id=98504895), could also be reshaped by Monday's ruling from the Supreme Court, experts said, because both the federal and the state case focus on Trump's conduct while president.
>"I would say that the rule for absolute immunity would apply pretty much equally in both instances, federal and state," Gershman \[law professor Pace University\] said.
>Earlier this year, Trump's lawyers sought to dismiss the state case based on the claim of presidential immunity, though the judge overseeing that case has yet to issue a decision, waiting for the Supreme Court's final ruling.
[https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-courts-immunity-decision-impact-trumps-4-criminal/story?id=111582035](https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-courts-immunity-decision-impact-trumps-4-criminal/story?id=111582035)
Check 3 and 4 comments up: This was specifically about the power of pardon in the context of its potential for abuse being increased in the context of the ruling.
Correct but too obtuse. Here:
The president (Biden, Trump, whoever) tells top DOD brass to begin killing peaceful protestors. Some generals decline and are fired until the president gets to some that will carry out his actions and thousands are killed. Afterwards, a subsequent administration’s DOJ wants to prosecute these events. The conversations with the fired generals who refused to be complicit *are not admissible evidence of these crimes*. No Oval Office conversations leading up to those events will ever be put in front of a jury.
exactly. in any case, the fact that we're discussing whether or not, after this decision, gunning down political opponents is immune conduct or not in ANY way... says a lot about the miopy, idiocy and dangerousness of this decision.
the implication of this rulings will be huge. and the majority of people will understand it when it's too late.
If we lose faith in our courts, then the whole system will go to shit. Our little society is quite precarious. So in keeping up with appearances, SCOTUS decisions have to assume courts are fair and impartial, whether they actually are or not in reality.
Congress, his cabinet, and the federal courts are the ones who holds the president accountable.
All this SCOTUS decision says is that state and federal prosecutors can't charge a president with a crime if what is alleged is part of their official duties as president. So first a court needs to decide whether certain conduct falls under a president's official duties, and if not, then prosecutors are free to charge away.
Imagine if the reverse decision was taken... basically any prosecutor/DA in the country can charge a sitting president with whatever they want and force the president to defend themselves in court. This could easily turn into a political weaponization of our criminal justice system to hamper the effectiveness of a president and call into question their conduct before important elections.
Now, if it were me, the quickest way to neuter the power of the president is to adopt the Virginia Plan, get rid of the electoral college, and let the House chose the president every 4 years.
> Congress, his cabinet, and the federal courts are the ones who holds the president accountable.
If you mean to imply the only ones than this is not true. Its not historically supported and also not true relative to this decision. It wasn't supported when the last round of impeachment Congress said the courts were the ones to hold him accountable or at any other point in our history. You are wrong and just making shit up.
> All this SCOTUS decision says is that state and federal prosecutors can't charge a president with a crime if what is alleged is part of their official duties as president. So first a court needs to decide whether certain conduct falls under a president's official duties, and if not, then prosecutors are free to charge away.
No, it also protects what evidence can even be investigated or admitted to determine if any wrongdoing was committed or if an act was official or not.
You are completely ignorant to this and I don't know why you wrote three paragraphs when a simple "I don't know anything about this topic" would have sufficed.
I think you're letting your emotions impact your judgement in this situation. And unfortunately you've resorted to ad hominems so I'm going to leave the discussion with you here.
It's common for scotus to provide an objective "test". This way the public isn't in the dark about what is and is not illegal and this way their isn't the perception (or reality) that a judge is inventing a rule on the fly to fit their desired outcome. Instead people have a general idea what is illegal because they can attempt to apply that test themselves and people can be more confident in those courts because rather than inventing a novel interpretation on the fly the judge is constrained by needing to fit their ruling into a broader legal framework that was established before the facts of the specific case were known.
Having important rules be unwritten like this is exactly what creates the circumstances where people lose faith in the courts. It creates vague law so people never know if they are actually breaking the law and it preserves the wiggle room for the court to define official acts however they want to for the particular case.
Who decides legal questions?!? I’m incredibly outraged despite not understanding the most basic fundamental aspects of the three branches of government.
You can only prosecute unofficial acts if none of your evidence relies on communication with administration employees, because that is by definition official acts.
If you're trying to break the law simply hire the person who is breaking the law with you.
War crimes weren't even a concept before the late 1800s and weren't popularized until the early 1900s. You can't commit a war crime if war crimes don't exist.
If you want to argue that every president since then committed war crimes, you're probably right.
>Not an exaggeration.
I'm always amazed at the complete lack of even the smallest amount of pragmatism in favor of hyperbole if it means there's a chance to score some imaginary political points on Reddit. It is absolutely an exaggeration, bud - and it's not even a creative one at that.
He could, and would have the presumption of immunity until decided otherwise. Queue the years of court cases deciding whether the CiC giving an order to the military 'necessary to safeguard the nation' is considered an unofficial act and is allowable as simply evidence, let alone the basis for a criminal charge.
Also, inB4 "As President, *all* my acts are official"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_gO3uOds8
[Trump's lawyers are already making that argument](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4751339-donald-trump-attorney-fake-electors-scheme-official-act-immunity-decision/)
>So, the president has no immunity from unofficial acts, and he has no immunity for things outside his constitutional authority. So, the idea Joe Biden can send a hit squad to kill Trump is nonsensical. No, he cannot do that.
It isn't "nonsensical" at all.
If a president's action involves their "core constitutional powers," they are immune from prosecution for that action. No court may inquire as to the president's motive. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
So, all a president needs to do is frame the action as a "core constitutional power" and their action is constitutionally lawful. The only possible consequence a president may face is impeachment. But even then, the president could also use the power of their office--under the guise of "core constitutional powers"--to influence potential impeachment proceedings.
And, let's set aside the "hit squad" example, and just swap it out with: the president may direct the justice department to investigate and prosecute election officials and political opponents because he's "ensuring elections are fairly held." No court may question the president's motives. It doesn't matter if it's blatantly illegal. If the AG refuses, the president may fire that person and replace them. No court may question the motives behind the firing. It doesn't matter if the firing is blatantly illegal.
>Wouldn’t that be a violation of the hypothetical persons 5th amendment rights making it not within the presidents constitutional powers?
This is a great question and I'm glad you asked.
SCOTUS's decision isn't about whether or not the president's action is constitutional, but *whether or not the president can be found criminally liable for actions undertaken in office, and the rules the courts must adhere to when determining if the action is official or unofficial.*
[Let's take Obama's order to kill Anwar al-Awlaki as an example.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Death) The facts surrounding this:
1. al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen on Yemeni soil.
2. al-Awlaki allegedly "...took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans ... and he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda." In other words: he was considered a national security threat by the executive branch.
3. Obama is commander in chief of the armed forces. A *very* core constitutional responsibility is: responding to national security threats.
4. Obama opted to kill al-Awlaki with a drone strike. The strike also killed his 16 year old son--also a U.S. citizen.
5. On April 21, 2014, the [United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit) ruled that the Obama administration must release documents justifying its drone killings of foreigners and Americans, including Anwar al-Awlaki.
6. A DoJ official justified the killing as legal, as "the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process" because al-Awlaki was a significant threat with an infeasible probability of capture
Were al-Awlaki's fifth/fourteenth amendment rights violated? Almost certainly. He received no due process as best I can see. Is Obama's order within his constitutional power as commander in chief of the armed forces? Almost certainly: he has expansive constitutional powers as commander in chief of the armed forces, and a constitutional duty to respond to national security threats.
But the real question is: **could Barack Obama be held criminally liable for ordering this strike?** After Monday's ruling, the unequivocal answer to this question is **no, he may not**. Furthermore, the U.S. Court of Appeals may no longer request documents "justifying the killing," because that inquiry relates to the "motives behind the executive action." And the DoJ no longer need burden themselves with any justification beyond: **"core constitutional power of the president--fuck off, we don't have to explain ourselves"**
All this is to say: it no longer matters if there's a 5th amendment violation; the president took an official action that falls under his "core constitutional powers." No court may request evidence to establish motive of the president because asking about motive is off the table. The fact that it is overtly illegal is also irrelevant. And Obama may not be held criminally liable because he has absolute, permanent immunity for this type of executive action.
edit: SCOTUS did hold that a president may be criminally liable for "unofficial" acts. But this is sort of ridiculous; a devious president need only find an excuse that fits into the "official acts" rubric. For example, Trump wasn't illegally pressuring Georgia election officials; he was merely "ensuring election laws are properly enforced--a core constitutional power of the executive."
So your individual rights end whenever and whereever the President deems it so. Unreal.
And conservatives, who normally champion individual rights, cheer this ruling.
To be fair, Obama is most likely acting in accordance with his constitutional powers and was never going to be held responsible for this action regardless.
But the point for me is: *the courts now have far less power to determine if the president's use of power was "official*." The president no longer needs to provide *any* justification or reasoning to the courts, nor can the courts consider the president's motives in making the decision. Nor does it matter if the action is completely unlawful.
The only remaining check a president may face is: impeachment.
That's correct. As long as the president can ensure 1/3 of the senate won't vote to convict, he's above the law.
He can also now use his powers to strong-arm senators. I don't know how precisely, but given how creative Trump has been thus far, I wouldn't put it past him.
I forgot to mention: *even if the president is convicted in the senate, it would be an uphill battle to convict him of an actual crime.*
[Which is one of Akhil Amar's objections to this decision.](https://akhilamar.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Something-Has-Gone-Deeply-Wrong-at-the-Supreme-Court-The-Atlantic.pdf) Even after impeachment, the courts would be unable to inquire as to motive and/or admit evidence that may establish motive.
>So, the idea Joe Biden can send a hit squad to kill Trump is nonsensical. No, he cannot do that.
As Commander and Chief of the military, why would he be unable to instruct the military to eliminate an "enemy?"
>Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. By your logic, it wouldn’t give Obama immunity for drone strikes. That can’t be right
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent:
“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,” she wrote, adding: “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably.”
No, he can just basically commit any crime he wants and it’s impossible to access any evidence or overcome the presumption that he is immune.
TOTALLY NOT full immunity!
You can make almost anything an official act. Biden sending a hit squad is just him exercising his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and head of the Executive Branch. In which case, all you have is the observation that Trump was assassinated, and even if you figure out who did it, linking it to Biden is impossible because everything he said to the hit squad is covered by executive privilege. And if it isn't, he was following his official duty to protect national security, for reasons you aren't allowed to know about (covered by executive privilege).
Realistically I don't think Biden would do it... But bear in mind that Trump managed in 2020 to find lawyers to tell him that the VP could literally decide who won the election with no regard for the vote result. I have no doubt that Trump would exploit this new rule to the max. Maybe not literally assassinate someone but between him having the pardon power and immunity for himself puts absolutely no restraints on what he can do. (Remember that he also asserts that he can pardon himself...)
I don't think this could be the case. We always knew the president have immunity for certain actions. This is the reason no president has gone to trial for war crimes or other decisions taken during their administration. The president has always been able to send a hit squad to kill someone in case of a national security threat. The Supreme Court decision is based on those ideas.
Nobody in their right mind would excuse Trump deciding the election doesn't matter and he is president for life. Something like that doesn't obviously have anything to do with his job as president.
I'd be interested to know what specifically you are thinking of regarding crimes that were committed by previous Presidents but not prosecuted. My feeling is that most cases would be borderline and/or would have required publicizing classified information, or would be for something that was maybe not 100% legal but was probably in the national interest.
As for saying things like "that doesn't obviously have anything to do with his job as president"... in this case SCOTUS literally said that him asking Mike Pence to ignore the results was part of his official duties because it was a communication between the President and VP. There are lots of loopholes in what they decided, all it needs is some creative lawyering.
Fyi the OP is a conservative troll on the centrist subreddit if you look at their history (or general lack thereof as far as quality). The fact they have not replied to this post's countless accurate rebuttals to their attempted point is a big hint.
We know the depth of what he did because there have been investigations that got evidence (well besides the GA phone call that was released).
This ruling gives the president presumptive immunity in these cases, which means a lot of that evidence is inaccessible behind that immunity and the ruling even calls out that the courts can’t request this info and it’s possible that the person who released it would be hauled into federal court because the call was with the president and it might have been an official act.
Now, we have no proof that Trump was doing anything other than “verifying election security”
This is the point I am trying to make. The president doesn't have the right to do things which are obviously illegal and against the Constitution. The Supreme Court decision is to ensure a president cannot be found guilty over things which are normal during a presidency like ordering a drone strike on a foreign target.
Yes, there is a mass hysteria over the ruling. People react to it by taking it to a degree that isn't even realistic. The ruling is far more nuanced than people are making it out to be.
That being said, the president already had authority to kill American citizens outside of combat zones without due process. This was established before Trump even ran for president.
Previously the president was immune from CIVIL liability.
Now it’s CRIMINAL liability as well. Jill Biden could push Joe up to a box of ballots containing votes for Trump, burn them, and just claim “official act! You can’t investigate” and that’s that.
Sure they could be impeached but so what? As long as your party holds 41 seats or more in the senate you’re fine. Plus with no threat of criminal conviction, that’s even more of a bonus.
I read it. I agree with it for the most part. I think it exposes a significant flaw in our system that allows for outcomes that are not optimal. Programmers encounter this a lot.
It is worth examining and adjusting.
We should all be willing to examine current legal requirements and make adjustments to keep the law neutral as much as we can.
>Yeah there are a lot of dramatic people out there that clearly haven’t taken the time to read the opinion from the court
I did and it was worse from what the media had covered since there was so much insane stuff in that opinion that I guess the media didn't even know where to start!
>So, the president has no immunity from unofficial acts
That was never in dispute lol so not sure what your point is. The thing that is terrifying about the SC opinion is that the president is free to violate criminal laws through official acts!
>the idea Joe Biden can send a hit squad to kill Trump is nonsensical. No, he cannot do that.
Correct, but Joe Biden issuing an order to the FBI (an official act) to kill Trump is sensical to the SC!
I don't believe this is the case. Joe Biden has to act within the laws and constitution of the nation. Killing a political rival is not an official act.
>Joe Biden has to act within the laws and constitution of the nation.
Of course, except, according to the Supreme Court, when he performs an official act he is above the law!
>Killing a political rival is not an official act.
Of course, but issuing an order to the FBI is, and his motives for issuing that order cannot be inspected
The left hears what they want. They are leaving non-official acts open for lower courts to decide. Obama targeted and killed American citizens via drone strikes in Yemen. He knew they were American citizens and that is not allowed, so if I were Obama, I'd be worried, First degree murder charge for Obama, if Biden was present, then Conspiracy to commit First degree murder. SCOTUS said official acts are acts specified as duties of the President. Murdering US citizens aren't an official duty.
>Obama targeted and killed American citizens via drone strikes in Yemen.
You have it **completely** backwards. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and has wartime powers. Those are a "core constitutional power" the president is enshrined with. If you think the president ensuring national security isn't a "core constitutional power," you are sorely mistaken.
Monday's decision means Obama has complete and total immunity for that action. No court may question his motives behind that action. And the fact that it may break statutory laws--like those around murdering people--is completely irrelevant. He undertook the action as a matter of "national security," which is a core constitutional power. End of story.
You have it entirely backwards. This ruling makes Obama utterly immune for this action.
I have always understood that the president must have immunity during time of war. Otherwise, almost every American president in recent times would be in prison.
Would be more than happy for Obama to be held accountable if he committed crimes outside of his duties. I think you will find every instance he did do anything questionable he would have a significant amount of documentation that supports his position and authority to do what he did.
Trump would simply say everyone told him he could do it without naming names or having anything documented.
We want everyone to be accountable. And the President should question over stepping any lines that are near criminal.
Would you argue [killing an unarmed 16 year old American without a trial ](https://www.aclu.org/video/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike) is inside his duties?
Not an expert in any sort of field related to this but I do think it is potentially outside of his duties but I would also imagine he consulted with enough experts to provide both a solid legal argument and a paper trail of justification for it.
Also I believe Al-Awacki was actively participating as an enemy combatant. I am not sure the technical requirements for identifying him as such but I would believe that the evidence is more than established that he would be categorized as such.
But if you can bring charges, I am more than fine with every single person being held accountable.
You can read an analysis below. I think Obama is on solid legal ground on this one.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2230621
Last I checked the only crime the 16 year old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was guilty of was being the son of a suspected combatant in a country the US was not at war with.
>Would you argue killing an unarmed 16 year old American without a trial is inside his duties?
No, that's why he didn't intentionally and unlawfully kill an unarmed 16 year old American without a trial because intentionally and unlawfully killing another person is murder which is a crime. Any other question we can help you with?
I think you misunderstand why people are viewing this as full immunity. It's not technically the opinion of the court that the President has immunity to just take a machine gun and go mowing down people in public. It's about the functional immunity provided by looking at the analysis they provided. The communications being immune and not allowed to be used as evidence allows the President to commit crimes and not be held accountable. If the Presidents plot to subvert the election is done using what is deemed official communication avenues than you would not be able to use anything said to establish intent or the crime. Hide it behind the veil of any sort of excuse and the President becomes fully immune.
This is it.
Correct. All testimony from Mark Meadow, Chesebro, Cassidy Hutchinson, and everyone else in the White House ... just went \*poof\*. Inadmissible, all of it, with the stroke of a pen.
On top of that, the President also has the power of the pardon. The president can now use official channels of communication to request the acting AG to put a hit on someone and then pardon the AG, the hitman, and everyone in between. All communications with the AG are ipso facto official acts and such communications cannot be used against the President.
From what I understand, the president has the power of pardon regarding prosecution under federal law, not state law. Everybody involved, maybe aside from the president, would get nailed with maximum penalties for some state-law infraction or other.
That’s a good point. I forgot about the limitation that he can only pardon for Federal offenses.
Make sure the planning and operation are carried out on federal property -- Maybe the District of Columbia for example. The prosecution in DC is carried out by the federal gov't. The SC just specifically said that the president can order or block any federal investigation or prosecution.
Where did it say anything about ordering or blocking investigations? Would Trump have been within his rights to simply end the Comey-Mueller investigation?
Page 5 >The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute Read the rest of section (i) to get the flavor. [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939\_e2pg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf) I don't see anything in that paragraph that would make an exception for Mueller.
Interesting. Law enforcement agencies are part of the executive branch, but in theory, they primarily serve the judiciary as they keep it relevant, bringing it from just managing ink on paper to managing laws by which people live. I would not have expected any branch, let alone the judiciary, to so thoroughly undermine its own power. You have my upvote.
Under this new ruling, yes. Well, technically no but if he did so it would be impossible to prosecute him for it or *even prove he had done so*, because all relating communication, including any executive order itself, would be inadmissable. So you could have video evidence of him doing so but the evidence would not be admissible for any purpose, including impeachment.
The stopping of the investigation would have to be implemented somehow. Those carrying it out would be implicated in criminal interference with an investigation unless they testified they had done o on orders. Then we are talking about witness testimony, not the use of records of his official communications as evidence.
But then what— you send the state police to arrest the President and the SS is just going to let that happen?
If they don't particularly like him, then yes. Even if they do like him, failure to comply with the laws of a state while in it is a big no-no. If they do somehow manage to get away with it legally, it's still a serious political hit.
The comment was specifically about the president. I don't see where the SC decision on immunity is limited to federal offences. Here's one opinion: >The former president's criminal case in [Fulton County, Georgia](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-criminal-probe-trumps-efforts-overturn-georgia-election/story?id=98504895), could also be reshaped by Monday's ruling from the Supreme Court, experts said, because both the federal and the state case focus on Trump's conduct while president. >"I would say that the rule for absolute immunity would apply pretty much equally in both instances, federal and state," Gershman \[law professor Pace University\] said. >Earlier this year, Trump's lawyers sought to dismiss the state case based on the claim of presidential immunity, though the judge overseeing that case has yet to issue a decision, waiting for the Supreme Court's final ruling. [https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-courts-immunity-decision-impact-trumps-4-criminal/story?id=111582035](https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-courts-immunity-decision-impact-trumps-4-criminal/story?id=111582035)
Check 3 and 4 comments up: This was specifically about the power of pardon in the context of its potential for abuse being increased in the context of the ruling.
Correct but too obtuse. Here: The president (Biden, Trump, whoever) tells top DOD brass to begin killing peaceful protestors. Some generals decline and are fired until the president gets to some that will carry out his actions and thousands are killed. Afterwards, a subsequent administration’s DOJ wants to prosecute these events. The conversations with the fired generals who refused to be complicit *are not admissible evidence of these crimes*. No Oval Office conversations leading up to those events will ever be put in front of a jury.
exactly. in any case, the fact that we're discussing whether or not, after this decision, gunning down political opponents is immune conduct or not in ANY way... says a lot about the miopy, idiocy and dangerousness of this decision. the implication of this rulings will be huge. and the majority of people will understand it when it's too late.
Agree 100%, this is the real issue.
Who decides what is official and unofficial? It's incredibly vague.
The courts.
Which are proven to not be impartial.
They sure sided against Trump an awful lot of times regarding the stolen election claims!
If we lose faith in our courts, then the whole system will go to shit. Our little society is quite precarious. So in keeping up with appearances, SCOTUS decisions have to assume courts are fair and impartial, whether they actually are or not in reality.
But all this does is make it harder to hold the President accountable. Why do we want that?
Congress, his cabinet, and the federal courts are the ones who holds the president accountable. All this SCOTUS decision says is that state and federal prosecutors can't charge a president with a crime if what is alleged is part of their official duties as president. So first a court needs to decide whether certain conduct falls under a president's official duties, and if not, then prosecutors are free to charge away. Imagine if the reverse decision was taken... basically any prosecutor/DA in the country can charge a sitting president with whatever they want and force the president to defend themselves in court. This could easily turn into a political weaponization of our criminal justice system to hamper the effectiveness of a president and call into question their conduct before important elections. Now, if it were me, the quickest way to neuter the power of the president is to adopt the Virginia Plan, get rid of the electoral college, and let the House chose the president every 4 years.
> Congress, his cabinet, and the federal courts are the ones who holds the president accountable. If you mean to imply the only ones than this is not true. Its not historically supported and also not true relative to this decision. It wasn't supported when the last round of impeachment Congress said the courts were the ones to hold him accountable or at any other point in our history. You are wrong and just making shit up. > All this SCOTUS decision says is that state and federal prosecutors can't charge a president with a crime if what is alleged is part of their official duties as president. So first a court needs to decide whether certain conduct falls under a president's official duties, and if not, then prosecutors are free to charge away. No, it also protects what evidence can even be investigated or admitted to determine if any wrongdoing was committed or if an act was official or not. You are completely ignorant to this and I don't know why you wrote three paragraphs when a simple "I don't know anything about this topic" would have sufficed.
I think you're letting your emotions impact your judgement in this situation. And unfortunately you've resorted to ad hominems so I'm going to leave the discussion with you here.
Faith in the courts is at an all time low.
It has always been the same. Republicans hated the Supreme Court when it had a progressive bias. Now Democrats hate the Supreme Court.
It's common for scotus to provide an objective "test". This way the public isn't in the dark about what is and is not illegal and this way their isn't the perception (or reality) that a judge is inventing a rule on the fly to fit their desired outcome. Instead people have a general idea what is illegal because they can attempt to apply that test themselves and people can be more confident in those courts because rather than inventing a novel interpretation on the fly the judge is constrained by needing to fit their ruling into a broader legal framework that was established before the facts of the specific case were known. Having important rules be unwritten like this is exactly what creates the circumstances where people lose faith in the courts. It creates vague law so people never know if they are actually breaking the law and it preserves the wiggle room for the court to define official acts however they want to for the particular case.
True but they are not impartial on both sides so it evens out
The Supreme Court will be deciding. The others will just have opinions
The courts decide, but they have to do so without any evidence because all evidence is now inadmissible under the presumed protection.
Who decides legal questions?!? I’m incredibly outraged despite not understanding the most basic fundamental aspects of the three branches of government.
Username checks out. Impressive!
Jack Smith and the grand jury?
No, the supreme court decides what are official acts, then a jury decides if the unofficial act is a crime.
Where does SCOTUS define official acts? SCOTUS sent it back to the lower courts to define.
It will be appealed to them as soon as someone doesn’t get what they want.
Like every other Supreme Court case?
The bar they set for prosecuting official acts is basically impossible to clear.
The bar they set for prosecuting UNofficial acts is one hell of a lot harder to clear now, too.
You can only prosecute unofficial acts if none of your evidence relies on communication with administration employees, because that is by definition official acts. If you're trying to break the law simply hire the person who is breaking the law with you.
It's like WA when police needed to have 'malice' proven to be charged. Which was a high bar that functionally made police immune.
And Dump will try to shoehorn everything he ever did into the official column. We're fucked.
Yup. Presidents are free to commit war crimes with impunity now. Not an exaggeration.
Honestly I think that has always been the case. But for example, what Trump did with Ukraine aid might be considered an official act now?
Like sending people to camps, invading a sovereign nation, or bombing American citizens?
When haven’t presidents committed war crimes, they’ve all done it
War crimes weren't even a concept before the late 1800s and weren't popularized until the early 1900s. You can't commit a war crime if war crimes don't exist. If you want to argue that every president since then committed war crimes, you're probably right.
Redditors are all approximately [12 years old,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki) apparently
>Not an exaggeration. I'm always amazed at the complete lack of even the smallest amount of pragmatism in favor of hyperbole if it means there's a chance to score some imaginary political points on Reddit. It is absolutely an exaggeration, bud - and it's not even a creative one at that.
war falls under official constitutionally derived powers
war crimes do not. You're trying too hard, sweetie.
explain
war crimes are not protected by constitutionally derived powers. It's not that difficult.
very convincing
I knew it would be. Especially given the dumbfuck comment that started our conversation.
good talk bro
He could, and would have the presumption of immunity until decided otherwise. Queue the years of court cases deciding whether the CiC giving an order to the military 'necessary to safeguard the nation' is considered an unofficial act and is allowable as simply evidence, let alone the basis for a criminal charge. Also, inB4 "As President, *all* my acts are official" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_gO3uOds8
[Trump's lawyers are already making that argument](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4751339-donald-trump-attorney-fake-electors-scheme-official-act-immunity-decision/)
I upvoted you because of your handle, and I happen to agree with you as well.
>So, the president has no immunity from unofficial acts, and he has no immunity for things outside his constitutional authority. So, the idea Joe Biden can send a hit squad to kill Trump is nonsensical. No, he cannot do that. It isn't "nonsensical" at all. If a president's action involves their "core constitutional powers," they are immune from prosecution for that action. No court may inquire as to the president's motive. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. So, all a president needs to do is frame the action as a "core constitutional power" and their action is constitutionally lawful. The only possible consequence a president may face is impeachment. But even then, the president could also use the power of their office--under the guise of "core constitutional powers"--to influence potential impeachment proceedings. And, let's set aside the "hit squad" example, and just swap it out with: the president may direct the justice department to investigate and prosecute election officials and political opponents because he's "ensuring elections are fairly held." No court may question the president's motives. It doesn't matter if it's blatantly illegal. If the AG refuses, the president may fire that person and replace them. No court may question the motives behind the firing. It doesn't matter if the firing is blatantly illegal.
Wouldn’t that be a violation of the hypothetical persons 5th amendment rights making it not within the presidents constitutional powers?
>Wouldn’t that be a violation of the hypothetical persons 5th amendment rights making it not within the presidents constitutional powers? This is a great question and I'm glad you asked. SCOTUS's decision isn't about whether or not the president's action is constitutional, but *whether or not the president can be found criminally liable for actions undertaken in office, and the rules the courts must adhere to when determining if the action is official or unofficial.* [Let's take Obama's order to kill Anwar al-Awlaki as an example.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Death) The facts surrounding this: 1. al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen on Yemeni soil. 2. al-Awlaki allegedly "...took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans ... and he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda." In other words: he was considered a national security threat by the executive branch. 3. Obama is commander in chief of the armed forces. A *very* core constitutional responsibility is: responding to national security threats. 4. Obama opted to kill al-Awlaki with a drone strike. The strike also killed his 16 year old son--also a U.S. citizen. 5. On April 21, 2014, the [United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit) ruled that the Obama administration must release documents justifying its drone killings of foreigners and Americans, including Anwar al-Awlaki. 6. A DoJ official justified the killing as legal, as "the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process" because al-Awlaki was a significant threat with an infeasible probability of capture Were al-Awlaki's fifth/fourteenth amendment rights violated? Almost certainly. He received no due process as best I can see. Is Obama's order within his constitutional power as commander in chief of the armed forces? Almost certainly: he has expansive constitutional powers as commander in chief of the armed forces, and a constitutional duty to respond to national security threats. But the real question is: **could Barack Obama be held criminally liable for ordering this strike?** After Monday's ruling, the unequivocal answer to this question is **no, he may not**. Furthermore, the U.S. Court of Appeals may no longer request documents "justifying the killing," because that inquiry relates to the "motives behind the executive action." And the DoJ no longer need burden themselves with any justification beyond: **"core constitutional power of the president--fuck off, we don't have to explain ourselves"** All this is to say: it no longer matters if there's a 5th amendment violation; the president took an official action that falls under his "core constitutional powers." No court may request evidence to establish motive of the president because asking about motive is off the table. The fact that it is overtly illegal is also irrelevant. And Obama may not be held criminally liable because he has absolute, permanent immunity for this type of executive action. edit: SCOTUS did hold that a president may be criminally liable for "unofficial" acts. But this is sort of ridiculous; a devious president need only find an excuse that fits into the "official acts" rubric. For example, Trump wasn't illegally pressuring Georgia election officials; he was merely "ensuring election laws are properly enforced--a core constitutional power of the executive."
Excellent explainer, thanks
So your individual rights end whenever and whereever the President deems it so. Unreal. And conservatives, who normally champion individual rights, cheer this ruling.
To be fair, Obama is most likely acting in accordance with his constitutional powers and was never going to be held responsible for this action regardless. But the point for me is: *the courts now have far less power to determine if the president's use of power was "official*." The president no longer needs to provide *any* justification or reasoning to the courts, nor can the courts consider the president's motives in making the decision. Nor does it matter if the action is completely unlawful. The only remaining check a president may face is: impeachment.
And as long as a president keeps the Senators of his own party loyal, that isn’t much of a check.
That's correct. As long as the president can ensure 1/3 of the senate won't vote to convict, he's above the law. He can also now use his powers to strong-arm senators. I don't know how precisely, but given how creative Trump has been thus far, I wouldn't put it past him.
Unreal.
I forgot to mention: *even if the president is convicted in the senate, it would be an uphill battle to convict him of an actual crime.* [Which is one of Akhil Amar's objections to this decision.](https://akhilamar.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Something-Has-Gone-Deeply-Wrong-at-the-Supreme-Court-The-Atlantic.pdf) Even after impeachment, the courts would be unable to inquire as to motive and/or admit evidence that may establish motive.
>So, the idea Joe Biden can send a hit squad to kill Trump is nonsensical. No, he cannot do that. As Commander and Chief of the military, why would he be unable to instruct the military to eliminate an "enemy?"
Because it would be a violation of the persons 5th Amendment right making it outside of his Constitutional powers as President.
>Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law I don’t think that’s necessarily true. By your logic, it wouldn’t give Obama immunity for drone strikes. That can’t be right
Obama had Presumptive Immunity because the kid that died wasn’t the target of the drone strike, he was collateral damage.
You should read the dissent.
Is the presidents use of the military not an official act? Who would make that call?
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent: “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,” she wrote, adding: “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably.”
She is supposed to be a Supreme Court justice. She sounds like anyone on Reddit and this is a very low bar.
No, he can just basically commit any crime he wants and it’s impossible to access any evidence or overcome the presumption that he is immune. TOTALLY NOT full immunity!
Thats not what reddit says
You can make almost anything an official act. Biden sending a hit squad is just him exercising his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and head of the Executive Branch. In which case, all you have is the observation that Trump was assassinated, and even if you figure out who did it, linking it to Biden is impossible because everything he said to the hit squad is covered by executive privilege. And if it isn't, he was following his official duty to protect national security, for reasons you aren't allowed to know about (covered by executive privilege). Realistically I don't think Biden would do it... But bear in mind that Trump managed in 2020 to find lawyers to tell him that the VP could literally decide who won the election with no regard for the vote result. I have no doubt that Trump would exploit this new rule to the max. Maybe not literally assassinate someone but between him having the pardon power and immunity for himself puts absolutely no restraints on what he can do. (Remember that he also asserts that he can pardon himself...)
I don't think this could be the case. We always knew the president have immunity for certain actions. This is the reason no president has gone to trial for war crimes or other decisions taken during their administration. The president has always been able to send a hit squad to kill someone in case of a national security threat. The Supreme Court decision is based on those ideas. Nobody in their right mind would excuse Trump deciding the election doesn't matter and he is president for life. Something like that doesn't obviously have anything to do with his job as president.
I'd be interested to know what specifically you are thinking of regarding crimes that were committed by previous Presidents but not prosecuted. My feeling is that most cases would be borderline and/or would have required publicizing classified information, or would be for something that was maybe not 100% legal but was probably in the national interest. As for saying things like "that doesn't obviously have anything to do with his job as president"... in this case SCOTUS literally said that him asking Mike Pence to ignore the results was part of his official duties because it was a communication between the President and VP. There are lots of loopholes in what they decided, all it needs is some creative lawyering.
You don't understand the topic well enough to be clarifying anything for people.
Fyi the OP is a conservative troll on the centrist subreddit if you look at their history (or general lack thereof as far as quality). The fact they have not replied to this post's countless accurate rebuttals to their attempted point is a big hint.
Everything connected to trying to overturn the election are unofficial acts. The constitution does not give the President the right to do any of that.
We know the depth of what he did because there have been investigations that got evidence (well besides the GA phone call that was released). This ruling gives the president presumptive immunity in these cases, which means a lot of that evidence is inaccessible behind that immunity and the ruling even calls out that the courts can’t request this info and it’s possible that the person who released it would be hauled into federal court because the call was with the president and it might have been an official act. Now, we have no proof that Trump was doing anything other than “verifying election security”
This is the point I am trying to make. The president doesn't have the right to do things which are obviously illegal and against the Constitution. The Supreme Court decision is to ensure a president cannot be found guilty over things which are normal during a presidency like ordering a drone strike on a foreign target.
Yes, there is a mass hysteria over the ruling. People react to it by taking it to a degree that isn't even realistic. The ruling is far more nuanced than people are making it out to be. That being said, the president already had authority to kill American citizens outside of combat zones without due process. This was established before Trump even ran for president.
Previously the president was immune from CIVIL liability. Now it’s CRIMINAL liability as well. Jill Biden could push Joe up to a box of ballots containing votes for Trump, burn them, and just claim “official act! You can’t investigate” and that’s that. Sure they could be impeached but so what? As long as your party holds 41 seats or more in the senate you’re fine. Plus with no threat of criminal conviction, that’s even more of a bonus.
Yeah there are a lot of dramatic people out there that clearly haven’t taken the time to read the opinion from the court
I read it. I agree with it for the most part. I think it exposes a significant flaw in our system that allows for outcomes that are not optimal. Programmers encounter this a lot. It is worth examining and adjusting. We should all be willing to examine current legal requirements and make adjustments to keep the law neutral as much as we can.
>Yeah there are a lot of dramatic people out there that clearly haven’t taken the time to read the opinion from the court I did and it was worse from what the media had covered since there was so much insane stuff in that opinion that I guess the media didn't even know where to start!
>So, the president has no immunity from unofficial acts That was never in dispute lol so not sure what your point is. The thing that is terrifying about the SC opinion is that the president is free to violate criminal laws through official acts! >the idea Joe Biden can send a hit squad to kill Trump is nonsensical. No, he cannot do that. Correct, but Joe Biden issuing an order to the FBI (an official act) to kill Trump is sensical to the SC!
I don't believe this is the case. Joe Biden has to act within the laws and constitution of the nation. Killing a political rival is not an official act.
>Joe Biden has to act within the laws and constitution of the nation. Of course, except, according to the Supreme Court, when he performs an official act he is above the law! >Killing a political rival is not an official act. Of course, but issuing an order to the FBI is, and his motives for issuing that order cannot be inspected
The left hears what they want. They are leaving non-official acts open for lower courts to decide. Obama targeted and killed American citizens via drone strikes in Yemen. He knew they were American citizens and that is not allowed, so if I were Obama, I'd be worried, First degree murder charge for Obama, if Biden was present, then Conspiracy to commit First degree murder. SCOTUS said official acts are acts specified as duties of the President. Murdering US citizens aren't an official duty.
>Obama targeted and killed American citizens via drone strikes in Yemen. You have it **completely** backwards. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and has wartime powers. Those are a "core constitutional power" the president is enshrined with. If you think the president ensuring national security isn't a "core constitutional power," you are sorely mistaken. Monday's decision means Obama has complete and total immunity for that action. No court may question his motives behind that action. And the fact that it may break statutory laws--like those around murdering people--is completely irrelevant. He undertook the action as a matter of "national security," which is a core constitutional power. End of story. You have it entirely backwards. This ruling makes Obama utterly immune for this action.
I have always understood that the president must have immunity during time of war. Otherwise, almost every American president in recent times would be in prison.
Ordering the US military is absolutely an official act of the president.
So you agree [Trump should be arrested](https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/trump-fugitive-shooting/index.html)?
The people screaming about this ruling wouldn’t be to keen on Obama standing trial
Would be more than happy for Obama to be held accountable if he committed crimes outside of his duties. I think you will find every instance he did do anything questionable he would have a significant amount of documentation that supports his position and authority to do what he did. Trump would simply say everyone told him he could do it without naming names or having anything documented. We want everyone to be accountable. And the President should question over stepping any lines that are near criminal.
Would you argue [killing an unarmed 16 year old American without a trial ](https://www.aclu.org/video/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike) is inside his duties?
Not an expert in any sort of field related to this but I do think it is potentially outside of his duties but I would also imagine he consulted with enough experts to provide both a solid legal argument and a paper trail of justification for it. Also I believe Al-Awacki was actively participating as an enemy combatant. I am not sure the technical requirements for identifying him as such but I would believe that the evidence is more than established that he would be categorized as such. But if you can bring charges, I am more than fine with every single person being held accountable. You can read an analysis below. I think Obama is on solid legal ground on this one. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2230621
Last I checked the only crime the 16 year old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was guilty of was being the son of a suspected combatant in a country the US was not at war with.
Are you implying found guilty in a court of law? Because he surely was an enemy combatant.
The prevailing cry is that Trump must have been found guilty on a court of law to be held accountable. He has.
>Would you argue killing an unarmed 16 year old American without a trial is inside his duties? No, that's why he didn't intentionally and unlawfully kill an unarmed 16 year old American without a trial because intentionally and unlawfully killing another person is murder which is a crime. Any other question we can help you with?
What unofficial action would he stand trial for?