Below is my column in The Hill on the over-wrought reaction to the Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States. Commentators seemed to compete for the most alarmist accounts from court-sanctioned death squads to political assassinations to the death of democracy. From the coverage of the immunity decision, one would think that the Madisonian Democracy was being replaced by a John Wick Republic. The academic and media accounts have little basis in the actual opinion. Despite the prediction of Rachel Maddow that this was a “Death Squad Ruling,” the only thing that seemed to die was objective reporting and commentary in the wake of the decision.
Here is the column:
On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow warned that the Supreme Court had just unleashed death squads to roam our streets. CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen announced that murder was now legal (at least for presidents), while others predicted that the ruling on presidential immunity would invite “tyranny.”
Anyone reading the coverage would conclude that James Madison has been replaced by John Wick in a new “Baba Yaga” Republic.
President Biden fueled the sense of panic in an address that repeated widespread false claims about the decision in Trump v. United States. Biden told the country that “for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.”
That, of course, is not true.
I have long opposed sweeping presidential privileges and powers. I have long argued that a sitting president can be criminally charged in office. But the portrayal of this Supreme Court opinion by the left and the media is wildly off base.
As it has in the past, the court adopted a three-tiered approach to presidential powers based on the source of a presidential action. Chief Justice John Roberts cited Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in which the court ruled against President Harry Truman’s takeover of steel mills.
In his famous concurrence to Youngstown, Justice Robert Jackson broke down the balance of executive and legislative authority between three types of actions. In the first, a president acts with express or implied authority from Congress. In the second, he acts where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area). In the third, the president acts in defiance of Congress.
In this decision, the court adopted a similar sliding scale. It held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial or private actions.
The proceedings in Manhattan after the decision belie the claims that a president can now commit murder with impunity. Judge Juan Merchan is likely to find that Trump’s conduct in office in approving payments related to Stormy Daniels fall into the third, unprotected category. While some of the testimony may have intruded into protected areas, most experts anticipate that the court will reject dismissal of charges under an absolute immunity claim. Judges in the other Trump prosecutions will be performing the same inquiry, though the impact is likely to be much greater in the case of the special counsel in Washington, D.C.
In fairness to critics, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent gave credence to their hyperbolic theories. Sotomayor wrote: “The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
The dissent ignores parts of the majority opinion that expressly refute such claims. For example, the majority discussed how prosecutors could present evidence in a bribery case that a president “allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.” The prosecution can overcome the presumption of immunity with such evidence.
Indeed, the majority stated that Trump’s alleged “private scheme with private actors” to create alternative slates of electors “cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular presidential function.” If that is established by the trial court, then Trump’s actions would not be protected by any sort of immunity.
In defining official functions, the Court referenced constitutional and statutory authority. It also recognized that a president must be able to speak to the public on matters of public interest, as Trump did on Jan. 6, 2021. While some of us believe that Trump’s speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment, the justices suggested that it was also protected as a matter of immunity.
That is a far cry from a green light for death squads. The idea that Trump could not order a slate of fake electors but could order a slew of political assassinations finds little support in the actual opinion.
Sotomayor is suggesting that the president could just declare that killing an opponent is in the national security interest. However, various laws contradict the claim that such acts are left to the discretion of the president. Not only would the military likely refuse such an unlawful order, but no court would consider it a core constitutional function.
The opinion draws lines with ample protection for presidents. The court cited opinions and practices going back decades for such breathing space.
Ironically, Biden’s hyperbolic account of the court’s opinion only serves to highlight the decision of former President Barack Obama and his vice president, Joe Biden, to kill an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, in a drone attack without a charge, let alone a conviction.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Obama administration’s “kill list” policy to a group of lawyers and judges at Northwestern University Law School and received not condemnation but applause. Under Holder, the Obama administration fought every effort of the al-Awlaki family to seek information on the killing and insisted that courts had no role to play in such cases.
Yet, in the wake of the immunity decision, Holder expressed shock at the implication of the presidential power.
Could Obama and Biden be charged with murder for what they did? Most say no, because they were acting in fulfillment of their national security authority. If so, could they simply declare a political opponent to be an enemy combatant? They actually did maintain, years before this Supreme Court opinion, that such a decision was left to them and figures such as Holder.
I likewise represented the House of Representatives in successfully challenging Obama’s spending billions under the Affordable Care Act that had not been approved by Congress. I also represented House members who contested Obama’s undeclared war in Libya. Could he be criminally charged for those actions?
Likewise, Biden as president has been repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, exercising racial discrimination and seeking to excuse billions in debt illegally.
The court was trying to find a middle path in addressing such controversies. In doing so, it rejected the extreme arguments of both the Trump team and the lower courts.
Putting aside the three-tiered approach, even a finding of presidential immunity does not mean that, as Biden falsely claimed, “there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.” It only concerns when a president can be personally charged. Federal courts can enjoin presidents from unlawful conduct, Congress can investigate presidents under oversight authority, impeach them and remove them from office.
The decision does not bar any and all prosecutions of presidents. It is still true, as stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 65, that presidents remain subject to the criminal justice system. After impeachment and removal from office, he stressed, the president ”will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
The opinion delineated those areas and evidence that may be barred from prosecution while allowing that prosecution is possible in other cases.
That nuance is lost in our current political environment. Biden and his allies spent months claiming that democracy will end and gay people will simply all be “disappeared” if he is defeated. So, there was admittedly little room left to escalate his rhetoric aside from death squads and a government based on a political “Assassin’s Creed.”
After all, these finer constitutional points are not nearly as riveting as the image of death squads roaming our streets. However, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of democracy’s death are greatly exaggerated.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School and author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
The Biden and Dem outrage is paranoid beyond reason, but this then gives conservatives an easy escape from a serious discussion. The problem CJ Roberts dodged is a 1st term President running for re-election, and the temptation to compete unfairly by using the Exec. Branch to nudge the election outcome. The Hatch Act is possibly nullified by this case precedent, because the President conspiring with officials to tilt the election can be claimed presumptively as official action. He can promise to non-prosecute or pardon Hatch Act violations. It would have made sense to rope off campaign-exclusive actions as non-official, exposing the incumbent to consequences for running a law-breaking campaign. Why that scenario wasn’t directly addressed by Roberts is questionable.
When a Democrat President uses this new immunity from prosecution to press an unfair advantage, you may regret the Roberts precedent.
Demented biden admin believes the rhetoric, so the crime spree of the biden dictatorship has begun.
Your uncompromising defense of freedom of expression is always refreshing, and you spent your energy here on rightly rebutting the Democrat criticism of the court’s decision, and ended up missing the real target.
As you point out, AG Holder did approve killing an American citizen without trial by invoking national security authorities, and then cynically pretended shock over the decision — which would immunize exactly that type of abuse of power. You were really on to the real issue here: the use of national security and emergency powers under a cloak of immunity provided by the decision.
You write that various laws will constrain the immunized executive using vague security authorities. Did they restrain the use of the IRS against groups on the right an left? Did the Anti-Torture Act stop the tortures in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (which our friends Mr. Obama Mr. Holder elected not to prosecute)? Did they restrain political surveillance by the CIA or FBI during the last 60 years?
The executive has repeatedly intervened against the Bill Of Rights, usually secretly before being exposed, and warrants no assumption of goodwill. So far, it is usually excused — the decision will make that routine.
Read some history and reflect. I doubt this was your best thought on the subject.
Patriot Act
Unleashed hell on our Constitution. All part of the plan.
It’s crystal clear to me that, like so many anti-Trump activists, the only thing you read prior to posting their opinion as was opposition to the ruling that supported their extreme bias, this was a foolish move on their part. Anyone that actually read the ruling with any kind of open mind about the Supreme Court or the position of the President would never come to the absurd partisan conclusions that these hacks did, they’re simply parroting disinformation* propaganda talking points as if they’re fact.
It’s signature significant when someone writes absurdly extrapolated disinformation like:
“Donald Trump will never again face a trial” when the ruling does nothing to stop Donald Trump from being legally prosecuted.
“The Supreme Court prostrating themselves” for Trump when the Supreme Court did nothing of the sort, they defined guidelines for lower courts to use, it’s up to the lower courts to figure out how to use them.
“When the Court absolves an autocratic and fascist personality we have hit the bottom” when the ruling doesn’t absolve anyone.
None of the things these hacks wrote are factual or truthful about the Supreme Court or the ruling, it’s pure disinformation propaganda regarding the Supreme Court and the ruling.
With all the abusive weaponization of the justice system to “get Trump” that’s been going on it was inevitable that a Presidential immunity case would make its way to the Supreme Court because the extreme nature of the anti-Trump activist is such that they simply don’t know when to stop, they’ll twist absolutely anything in their efforts to “get Trump”. The political left’s abusive weaponization of the justice system against the former President has forced the Supreme Court to define a long established common sense precedent that the political left is intentionally trying to undermine because their blind hate for Trump defies reason. I really don’t have much problem with disliking Trump, I dislike him too, but doing so with the mentality of the ends justifies the means and no matter what the consequences are is utterly moronic and truly anti-American. The rhetorical attacks on the Supreme Court because they didn’t rule the way anti-Trump activists wanted are immature, uncivil, anti-Constitution and anti-American and the disinformation propaganda tactics being used against the Supreme Court and some of their recent rulings are morally bankrupt.
P.S. When anti-Trump activists use the word fascist or racist in conjunction with Donald Trump they lose all credibility.
*Disinformation: is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.
See below as Dennis the draft dodger comes out of the fetal position to explain that Germans are even more whackadoodle than he is.
He then seems to suggest that Germans will be voting in our election “come November”.
He also continues to pretend that its not a certainty that Trumps NY conviction will be overturned.
Poor Denny, it must really suck to be him right now.
DDC is Floyd Estovir, of course. He’s the puppeteer behind Upstate Farmer, Thinkthrough, James, Hullbobby, Old Man From Kansas, Shakdi, Guy Ventner, Edward Mahl, Margot Ballhere, Whimsical Mama, Jaelyn Unafraid and many, many more.
Jonathan: You are fond of citing some polls that show DJT in the lead. Then here is a poll you will love.
In a recent poll in Germany 41% of Germans said DJT is the “greatest threat to world peace” compared with Kim Jong Un (17%), Ali Khamenei (8%), Vladimir Putin (8%) and Xi Junping (7%). And this in spite of the fact that DJT’s grandfather was born in Germany (DJT erroneously claimed his father Fred was also born there).
Then the Pew Research Center had a poll last month comparing DJT and Biden’s favorability ratings among 34 countries–who would “do the right thing regarding world affairs”. Among some European allies Biden was favored by 62% to 70%. The median was 43% with confidence in Biden compared to just 28% for DJT. Only Tunisia and Hungary had more confidence in DJT! And the Pew poll was taken BEFORE DJT was judged to be a “convicted felon” by a Manhattan jury.
Now I know. International polls don’t count for much in our presidential elections. But think about this. DJT wants again to be the leader of the strongest country in the world–the leader of the “free world”. How is he going to interact with world leaders if he won’t be able to travel to at least 37 countries whose immigration laws bar entry to a “convicted felon”? He will need a special waiver. The optics couldn’t be any worse–especially if in some countries he will be met with massive protests! Something to think about come November.
Those polls were conducted at the McInlyre July 4 family gathering.
These are pretty much the same numbers that George W. Bush was getting back at beginning of the GWOT. I was assigned to a NATO HQ in Italy at the time and heard the same litany every day.
“In a recent poll in Germany . . .”
The Left can have its international poll. I’ll take these facts:
Under Trump, there was relative peace.
Under Biden, Iran and its proxy Hamas invaded Israel, kidnapped and murdered its citizens. Russia invaded Ukraine. China eyes Taiwan and South America. Biden botched the Afghanistan withdrawal and got Americans killed. The entire Middle East is a tinder box.
Such are the consequences of having an addled “president” and a regime that appeases dictators.
In other words, following the “Trump v. United States” ruling, right now today – the ACLU or Institute for Justice or any constitutional lawyer could initiate a lawsuit against Bush’s torture attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice.
In 2024, the court has ruled a president can be held accountable for committing crimes while in office and there is no statute of limitations on war crimes like torture and blacklisting torture.
Based on declassified government records over 20+ years, we also know the Bush attorneys knowingly violated their constitutional authority – their actions were never “official duties”.
Bush attorneys knowingly violated Ronald Reagan’s Torture Treaty. These attorneys simply renamed torture.
The Bush lawyers were also the most culpable, not the CIA and DoD interrogators (forced to follow DOJ legal guidelines).
Seems like we just need an honest constitutional attorney to bring justice. Of course, Merrick Garland could and should do it also.
Most war crime indictments happen 20-40 years after the war crimes are committed, so 2024 is the perfect time to hold these folks accountable.
Who cares?
Peter was rejected by the military recruiters in West Hollywood, CA. It seems he did not pass the butch test, and the recruiters thought he needed a porch for his swing. Consequently Peter bemoans the fact he was deprived of the Bush era Guantanamo terrorist detainees so as to fulfill his BDSM fantasies he fantasized. hence his constant beating his stick about said issue
I did not realize that was Peter Poopy Watch, aka turdnonymous, who has posted that off topic horse manure ad nauseum.
Figures
He really is hung up abut those terrorists that got mistreated. He forgets that they would throw him off a building for his predilections.
JagCorps is Floyd Estovir whose puppets were urging commenters to use names. But in just this post alone, one can see why Floyd Estovir wants names.
PCM is also Floyd Estovir sending his malicious greetings.
Floyd Estovir is reserving his namesake puppets for now. But they’ll be back.
Floyd is much more handsome than Estovir but Hullbobby is funnier, UpState Farmer more salt of the earth, OldManFromKansas is very MidWestern, Young is not young, Whimsicalmama is hawt, MistressAdam is worth every dollar, Traveler holds the record for Passport stamps, Waters can be solid, gaseous, and all wet at the same time (triple point, as they say), Estovir helps people but can be surreptitious, Edward Mahl lacks malice, Milhouse posts a great windmill avatar, S. Meyer likes to call stupid people stupid and he is right to do so, whereas Peter Shill….. she is a hot mess 🔥
They’re all ‘you’, Floyd Estovir.
Another feckless Anonymous Soviet Democrat coward wrote: Seems like we just need an honest constitutional attorney to bring justice. Of course, Merrick Garland could and should do it also.
Is anybody NOT surprised that the anonymous Soviet Democrat coward didn’t name Commissar Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Soviet Democrats who signed off on that “torture” when the operational plan briefed to them by the CIA?
Does the Anonymous coward give those Soviet Democrat war criminals a pass because they’re in the legislative branch rather than the executive branch – they’re the ones with oversight responsibility. Or simply because they’re also Soviet Democrats as he is.
Of course, when Merrick Garland’s brief career as a star of police state fascism ends next November, Trump’s AG can go after both Bolshevik Barack and Bribery Biden for all their crimes. And Merrick Garland for contempt, obstruction, perjury under oath to Congress, etc.
Based on declassified government documents in the last few years and confessions to Oversight Committees given by Soviet Democrat DoJ, CIA, and State Department bureaucrats forced by subpoena to testify under oath, we know that Obama and Biden (as well as wannabe president Killary Clinton) were a moving crime wave the eight years of the Obama/Biden debacle.
Joining them wearing orange Clinton style jump suits could be James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller – and don’t forget Bolshevik Barack’s last two Attorney Generals.
If they chose they could do so under RICO laws – and every one of the lawyers that aided them in their malicious crime wave would find themselves in Leavenworth due to the criminal exception that leaves a gaping hole in their client privilege immunity.
Ain’t it weird how the Soviet Democrats who drooled like female dogs in heat were so eager to redefine torture while Bush was in office. Then lost their interest in justice when Obama and Biden were murdering American citizens – and their families that were with them when they were slaughtered by a drone.
How about a quicky prosecution of Bribery Biden for slaughtering one of our Afghan allies and his children while bragging he killed the terrorist he enabled to carry out the SIED bombing at Kabul?
If Democrats honestly believed that the SCOTUS decision gave presidents immunity for murder, then Joe Biden would have had Donald Trump assassinated. He’s already directed the DOJ to have his political opponent thrown in jail.
The lack of official assassination attempts means that Democrats are lying, know they are lying, and this is yet again Democrat election interference through disinformation.
Karen S: Stop lying. Joe Biden did NOT “direct the DOJ” to do anything–just some more BS you heard on MAGA media and believe. YOU are the one who is lying. WHERE is the proof that Joe Biden “directed the DOJ to have Trump thrown in jail”? If you don’t have any proof, which I know you don’t, then stop lying about it. Joe Biden earned a Juris Doctor Degree from Syracuse. He knows that prosecuting attorneys are not supposed to prosecute anyone in the absence of probable cause. Trump is a vindictive loser who has to dominate everything and everyone.
The only election interference is from Republicans–Russian hackers helping Trump cheat, so he got into office despite losing the popular vote. The payoffs to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels and falsification of business records to hide the truth from the American public about Trump’s extramarital affairs. Then, there’s the Big Lie–so many deluded individuals like you still believe it, despite anything resembling credible proof, and despite all proof to the contrary.
Without getting into the weeds about whether the opinion would allow a POTUS to order the assassination of a political rival, Biden wouldn’t do it. Trump wouldn’t hesitate. Trump is an amoral narcissistic pig with the morals of an alley cat.
If showing with your daughter, enabling your drug addicted son, denying your own mental incapacitation, putting up with a power-hungry shrew of a wife, siccing your dogs the Secret Service agents who protect you and denying the existence of your grand-daughter are what pass for moral in Gigiland, I’ll settle for immoral any day.
Or amoral, for that matter.
Actually GiGi there is mounting evidence of direct interaction of Biden’s DOJ with the multiple Trump indictments, Manhattan and Georgia. Undoubtedly in the Jackoff Smith persecution. Don’t worry, it’s all about to be revealed when Trump wins, or not.
But tell us Gigi, how do you really feel about Trump.
Bwahahahahahahahaa
Your life is about to suck SO bad!!!!
I am so looking forward to waking up on November 6 and tuning in MSDNC while reading the comments of Dennis, Gigi, and all their fellow travelers and useful idiots who frequent Res ipsa loquitur.
” Joe Biden earned a Juris Doctor Degree from Syracuse. He knows that prosecuting attorneys are not supposed to prosecute anyone in the absence of probable cause. Trump is a vindictive loser who has to dominate everything and everyone.”
WhatJoe Biden remembers from Syracuse is up for serious doubt. He claimed he was top half of class, he was at the bottom (75/76 out of 85 or thereabouts IIRC). He claimed to have a full academic scholarship – which he didn’t get. He seems to struggle to remember what he was saying mid-sentence, let alone what he may have learned at Syracuse.
He also participated in the decision to assassinate an American citizen by drone without any due process simply by the administration declaring him a national security threat – and it happened. At a minimum he witnessed and learned first hand how to kill an American without any due process whatsoever and get away with it long before this SCOTUS opinion. This is incontestable fact. He has already called Trump a threat to national security, as have many of his allies.
You frantically claim Trump would assassinate Biden, but you have zero evidence for it. As you said, where is your proof of this? You have none, so take tour own advice and “stop lying”.
The objective facts are that Biden has been involved in an administration, as number 2, that has *actually* assassinated an American citizen, yet we have zero evidence Trump did or has. So with the available evidence, if either of the two are more likely to do it, it would be more rational to conclude that Biden would – assuming he has a moment of mental clarity and memory access to think it through enough.
“…so he got into office despite losing the popular vote.”
The “popular vote” is nothing – it doesn’t exist. At best is understood as a logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. Hell, look at the ballots of most states and you find you do not even vote for president, you vote explicitly for an elector who promises to vote for your candidate. Thus not only is there no popular vote in the process, it doesn’t even exist as a technicality. The Office of POTUS is there head of a union of states, not people. It is senseless to think of it as something the people elect.
And the alleged Russian hackers was thoroughly debunked by the Mueller team – and yes I read both volumes of their reports. They found zero evidence of “hacking” by the Russians, zero coordination of the non-existent hacking our any other kind, and that the efforts they did engage in, such as buying ads on social media and getting existing supporters of Trump to hold rallies that basically went unattended for the most part, had zero effect. The Russian spent about 150k thereabouts on ads – in a race measured in billions.
Trump won that race for several major reasons:
1) Hillary was a terrible candidate
2) The democrats, including Hillary’s campaign, thought they had several key states in the electoral college locked down. So they didn’t campaign there.
3) Hillary ran a terrible campaign
4) Trump appealed to the working class person with issues they cared about, while Hillary campaigned on “make me the first female POTUS”
5) Trump was willing to go to areas typically assumed as Democrat strongholds
6) His Republican primary opponents were weaker candidates
In 2020, Trump’s campaign more closely resembled a typical one. Republicans in particular have a problem where they habitually write off certain areas as a waste of funds to campaign there because they think it is locked down one way or the other. Both do that to an extent but the Republicans are more prone to it. In 2020, Trump’s team somewhat did that. In 2024, however, they have returned to going anywhere, and the results are showing it.
It is a funny thing how political campaign people keep forgetting that lesson time and time again. Even the more observant Democrats were saying the above after 2016 until they glommed onto the Russiagate hoax. Obama’s team understood this, one of the few to remember it, and was going everywhere. Of course, that is boring in the news world, so the media ignores it unless it allows them to gush over their picks. Instead they focus on the window dressing, as you seem to do.
Turley means well but would like another article on the “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” in regards to immunity and official duties.
For example:
What about the temporary suspension of Habeas corpus? This temporary authority was only intended to exist in times of anarchy or extreme chaos and end when that situation improved.
So on September 12, 2001 (day after 9/11) a president or Congress could legitimately exercise a suspension of Habeas corpus due to extreme chaos in cities like NYC and Washington, DC. At this time it would meet the definition of constitutional authority.
One year later, in September of 2002, the vast majority of those mass chaos/anarchy reasons no longer existed. Police and federal officials had restored order in every American large city. A year later this would not meet any official’s constitutional authority.
American history is also full of unconstitutional precedents justifying these abuses of power. Rounding up and imprisoning U.S. citizens on the West Coast for 4 years of Japanese descent. If it had been “official duties”, why weren’t U.S. citizens of German descent locked up for 4 years? Was it constitutional or racism?
Today in 2024, the world’s most expensive prison (per capita) Guantanamo Bay is still open. In over 20 years federal prosecutors have netted “0” terrorism-convictions.
Bush at the time deemed these prisoners the “worst of the worst” – so dangerous they couldn’t be housed in drastically cheaper Supermax prisons inside the United States. Bush apparently thought his lies would be classified secret for 50 years. About 90% of the “Worst of the Worst” were released without any charges whatsoever. American taxpayers literally got taken to the bank!
Not just foreigners, in 2024 there are documented to be a minimum of 40,000 U.S. citizens on U.S. soil that have been covertly blacklisted (punished, defamed, destroyed) for more than 20 years. That is akin to “Chinese Water Torture” harassed by local police and federal officials (daily) exceeding 8000 consecutive days.
Trump supporters aren’t immune either. Since the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol – there are likely well over 100,000 Americans blacklisted for life. Lifetime punishment without charge, without trial and without a court guilty verdict. Real criminals convicted of real crimes, currently serving prison sentences – have more rights than these mostly innocent Americans have.
If this U.S. Supreme Court ruling has any meaning whatsoever – Roberts’ ruling would end all of these unconstitutional practices today.
About 90% of the “Worst of the Worst” were released without any charges
Names please
in 2024 there are documented to be a minimum of 40,000 U.S. citizens on U.S. soil that have been covertly blacklisted
document please
Today in 2024, the world’s most expensive prison (per capita) Guantanamo Bay
How many and what is the budget?
Ditto for the second most expensive.
Today in 2024, the world’s most expensive prison (per capita) Guantanamo Bay is still open. In over 20 years federal prosecutors have netted “0” terrorism-convictions.
Soviet Democrats fighting initiating those prosecutions has a lot to do with that. Many got the same get-out-of-jail-free cards similar to those handed first to Clinton and most recently to Biden: prosecutors who for political reasons would not prosecute.
Remember the good old days? When terrorists captured in fighting were given the justice provided by international law to such irregular combatants by both the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions (which terrorists don’t have the protection of as they’re not signatories to those conventions nor complying with them)?
That’s right! They could be summarily shot out of hand, on the spot.
Read page 5-6 (intro to Section II). Read nothing else. Do not read the Syllabus. Do not read the dissents. Those 500 or so words explain everything that follows.
1. The opinion applies to all Presidents
2. There are core and peripheral official acts. There is absolute and presumptive immunity
3. All presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for core constitutional official acts
4. All presidents have some presumptive immunity for some peripheral official acts
5. No president has immunity for anything done in an unofficial capacity
6. All of the above is well laid out in precedents (for these you do have to read the rest of the opinion-hint: mostly Youngstown and Fitzgerald but with a little good old Marbury from your Freshman year in high school)
7. Both parties in the specific case at hand and the judges who have looked at the case in hand so far agree with most of the above as outlined in case filings, the transcript of the open session and the court record left by the district and appellate courts
8. As to the specific case at hand, despite this near 100% agreement with points 1-6, none of the parties or the judges have addressed these distinctions “at the current stage of the proceedings.”
This is an inaccurate summary of pages 5-6. The Court does not hold that presidents have presumptive immunity for peripheral (aka non-core) official acts. Try again?
Person too cowardly to use her own name,
Yes I agree that based on those four or five paragraphs that it is possible one of the lower Courts to eventually look at these cases following Scotus’ direction will possibly rule that the immunity for peripheral actions is also absolute (as with the core functions). I doubt it but that is why I used the word “some” in two different places in my comment:
“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.”
You inaccurately summarized it. “Some presumptive immunity” does not mean “some immunity, which is at least presumptive and may be absolute”
Jonathan: It’s a stretch for you to try to “paraphrase” Mark Twain. On June 2, 1897 Twain wrote the NY Journal in response to an inquiry from an English journalist that the famous American author was gravely ill or had already died. Twain explained in his letter that his cousin, James Ross Clemens, was seriously ill in England but had fully recovered. Twain ended his letter by saying: “The report of my illness grew out of this illness. The report of my death was an exaggeration”.
Had Twain been alive today he would be equally appalled by the Roberts MAGA court decision. Twain was an “anti-imperialist”. He opposed the US invasions of the Cuba and the Philippines and rightly predicted they would result in “dictatorships”. Your attempt to “paraphrase” Mark Twain does a disservice to his memory. Twain would be rolling over in his grave to see the dictatorial powers that the MAGA SC has just bestowed on DJT should he become president again!
And I don’t think it’s an “exaggeration” that the Trump v. US decision gives complete immunity from criminal prosecution to any president for core “official acts”–completely destroying the “checks and balances” of our constitutional system. But you claim the Roberts’ decision found a “middle path”…”it rejected the extreme arguments of both the Trump team and the lower courts”. No. Roberts embraced every one of DJT’s arguments for immunity and rejected both Judge Chutkan’s and the DC Court of Appeals reasoned opinions that DJT is not immune from criminal prosecution.
Now I don’t think DJT’s first act, if he gets back in to power, will be to order Seal Team Six to assassinate one of his political rivals. But he has made it clear he will use his executive power over the DOJ and FBI to order them to begin investigations of people like Liz Cheney, Joe Biden, AG Garland and others he considers his political “enemies”. He will also likely have his handpicked DOJ to empanel grand juries to go after Jack Smith. In his concurrence Clarence Thomas signaled to Judge Cannon, a suggestion completely extraneous to any of the issues in the Trump case, that she should find Jack Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel unlawful. We know that we be part of DJT’s agenda if he gets back in power–to get rid of the appointments of Special Counsels–except those he can use to go after his enemies.
In my opinion the Roberts “immunity” decision will go down in Court history as one of the most appalling–along side Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson and Karematsu. The latter was another 6-3 decision in 1944 that was finally overturned in 2018. So what goes around comes around. Eventually the reign of the MAGA wing of the Court will end and Trump v. US will be overturned and restore what the Founders intended–that no one is above the law, not even a former president!
Dennis, one thing that your post was spot on was where you wrote, “I don’t think “, those were the truest words you’ve ever posted on this site.
Traveler,
HA!
Good one!
Your pedantry fails to impress.
Regarding political prosecutions of one’s enemies, the Democrats have drawn up a very clear road map of how to do that already!
Eventually the reign of the MAGA wing of the Court will end and Trump v. US will be overturned and restore what the Founders intended–that no one is above the law, not even a former president!
You wont live to see it.
Jonathan: Dennis “Baghdad Bob” McIntyre tries a stretch far beyond his grasp with each time he steals space on your comment section for his off topic political demagoguery and lies. Stealing space in your comment section because, as a true commie, he believes that it is his right that YOU should pay for the costs of an Internet forum for him to do his little performances. This is a good one which reeks of the putrid stench of Soviet Democrat projection:
But he has made it clear he will use his executive power over the DOJ and FBI to order them to begin investigations of people like Liz Cheney, Joe Biden, AG Garland and others he considers his political “enemies”.
Are we to believe that Baghdad Bob McIntyre doesn’t realize that he’s channeling exactly what Bolshevik Barack and Bribery Biden did using their executive powers over the DoJ and FBI when they ordered the investigation and prosecution of political enemies long before Trump ever announced his run for office?
Will Baghdad Bob McIntyre cosplay as not being aware they took out Alaska State Senator Ted Stevens on corruption charges – giving them an appointed Democrat replacement that gave them the necessary majority vote to pass Obamacare. Convictions that were thrown out as being biased, with prosecutors that lied to the courts and jury.
Will Baghdad Bob McIntyre attempt to cosplay that he isn’t aware that Bolshevik Barack and Bribery Biden sent Jack Smith out to take out their most feared potential rival for the 2012 election, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell? That they sent Jack Smith to tell IRS commissioner Louis Lerner that she could shut down GOP election groups for the duration of the 2012 campaign for “investigation”.
Will police state fascist Dennis cosplay as being unaware that Jack Smith’s conviction of McDonnell and his wife were thrown out by SCOTUS in a unanimous decision? The decision that said Jack Smith lied to the judge and jury, reinterpreted settled law for his political purposes, and made up law when he needed to in order to get convictions. Baghdad Bob McIntyre will attempt to project that on Trump – rather than confess that’s exactly what his bosses Bolshevik Barack and Bribery Biden did?
We know that Baghdad Bob’s agenda is to lie – and lie by projecting on Trump what Bolshevik Barack and Bribery Biden have been doing for 12 years now.
Americans are increasingly rejecting the Soviet Democrat police state fascist core of that pus filled party – and its’ corrupt, foul apparatchiks like Baghdad Bob McIntyre.
A liar. A police state fascist. And a thief. That’s our Baghdad Bob McIntyre for you. A fine example of the Soviet Democrat police state fascist cult.
Professor Turley,
You write: “The dissent ignores parts of the majority opinion that expressly refute such claims. For example, the majority discussed how prosecutors could present evidence in a bribery case that a president “allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.” The prosecution can overcome the presumption of immunity with such evidence.”
However, there are a number of issues with this analysis.
First, as noted below, it is not clear that presumptive immunity would apply to non-core official acts. Absolute immunity may apply. We don’t know yet because the Court declined to opine as to the appropriate standard.
Second, even if presumptive immunity is the correct standard, you fail to note that prosecutors cannot present evidence which would demonstrate the bad motives of a president. The very next sentences of the footnote you quote from state, “What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety.” As a result, a prosecutor could not admit evidence of a president’s communications with his staff, for example, that would demonstrate that he intended to sell a pardon (which is likely a core official act subject to absolute immunity, anyway) to the highest bidder.
So, no, it is incorrect to state that prosecutors can present evidence of a president demanding, receiving, accepting, or agreeing to receive or accept a bribe because of lot of that evidence would be excluded due to its potential to allow the jury to understand the President’s motives.
How is a prosecutor supposed to rebut the presumption of immunity, if he cannot bring in evidence of mens rea? This is a huge carveout. Yet, you failed to address it in this inaccurate summary of the case.
Anonymous: thank you. Turley often fails to admit inconvenient truths.
Look, Gigi forgot and used her fake login for some other site as her name here.
LMAO
She still liked her own comment though LOL
” The very next sentences of the footnote you quote from state, “What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety.” As a result, a prosecutor could not admit evidence of a president’s communications with his staff, for example, that would demonstrate that he intended to sell a pardon (which is likely a core official act subject to absolute immunity, anyway) to the highest bidder.”
The records of the one who offered/paid the bribe is not excluded by that. Given that that kind of evidence specifically is crucial to the case, that isn’t a stretch. On the strict legal term aspect, staff and advisers may overlap, but are not synonymous. For example, if a president told a staffer, such as a secretary or communications staffer, to reach out to a person’s legal team and offer them a pardon in exchange for money, that would not be excluded per the quoted text.
Another key distinction is “…probing the official act itself.” This strikes me as similar to, or at least along the same vein as, corruption charges which get into similar aspects. Specifically the “corrupt intent” and that as long as there is non-corrupt intent available, the latter takes priority and overrules assumption of corrupt intent. To try to cobble together something using your example (which I agree is easy to reason through but not a good choice on its merits), imagine the DoJ recommended the pardon to the POTUS and the POTUS asked the intended recipient for money. In that scenario, there would be an argument that the granting of the pardon itself – the act – was proper, despite the request for a bribe being improper. IMO that is the goal there, to separate a proper act from an improper aspect of the process of the act. In a sense, it is presumption of innocence for mens rea – since short of explicit statements all attempts to determine it are subjective if there is a proper reason available, we default to that.
And the distinction is important, because in the example the pardon itself is still proper and a protected official duty, even if the bribe portion is not, and the questioning of the act itself is what is to be avoided here. The choice of bribery as the example may harm your argument, as it doesn’t technically require a corrupt intent when performing the act. Bribery statues include accepting, not just seeking, and can occur after the act. The accepting of a bribe after the act would allow all such evidence because the act being investigated and charged is accepting the “gratuity”, not questioning the motive of the official act of the pardon. However, technically that’d be an illegal/improper gratuity charge not bribery, but most would consider it as a bribe and it is related to and within the bribery statues (IIRC, I may be off on its placement).
That said, circumstantial evidence, third-party testimony, direct evidence of the bribe itself, patterns of behavior, and violations of procedures are all admissible forms of evidence that a prosecutor can use to demonstrate corrupt intent while adhering to the legal constraints outlined by the decision. For example, take the scenario of someone not yet convicted, not recommended by DoJ, and the POTUS asks his/her secretary to call the subject’s legal team and ask “what is it worth to you” or even “what would it mean for you”, and the POTUS grants the pardon and gets a check from that party to their campaign fund. That confluence of events and evidence exists outside of the stated restrictions and would be admissible.
There is nothing new about employing scare tactics or buying votes.
“Wild claims” about constitutional fact revealed by the “Immunity” decision and utterly unconstitutional “Great Society” legislation are and were part and parcel of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the Communist Manifesto, the very antithesis of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“I’ll have those ——- voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”
– Lyndon B. Johnson
It calls to mind the assassination of JFK. Killing a political opponent isn’t new. Then Nixon’s political assassination was more clever , perhaps?
Please all remember, Nixon was caught in a cover up, he was not connected to the break in with Liddy. It’s the cover up that sunk him, although he was a slime ball!
Professor Turley,
You write: “In this decision, the court adopted a similar sliding scale. It held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial or private actions.”
This is an inaccurate summary of the holding of this case. The actual holding does not clarify whether presumptive or absolute immunity is applicable to “other official acts” (meaning non-core).
From page 6 of the opinion: “We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.”
Please correct this error. You would not accept such a poor summary from one of your law students, would you?
and yet….and yet….you would justify to the death to vote for Joe Biden, a man with dementia, for 4 more years of elder abuse
You Democrats sure are dim
Not a Democrat. Just a lawyer, who values accuracy. Did you have a substantive response to the above post?
“The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
– Dick the Butcher in Act IV, Scene II of Henry VI, Part II
Tell your handlers they are not sending their better trolls
Anonymous at 3:09 Responding within minutes to Anonymous at 2:58….yup, a bitter paid DNC troll. But arent they all?
Still waiting for the substantive response….
This is basic reading comprehension, though. No law degree required. What do you think this means:
“At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.”
Does it mean:
(a) presumptive immunity applies for non-core official acts; or
(b) the Court has not held whether presumptive or absolute immunity applies.
Turley apparently thinks it is (A). What do you think?
Who cares? It will be adjudicated.
What? Turley’s entire post is meant to critique the left for freaking out over the unprecedented decision by comparing it to Youngstown. However, by failing to definitively state the standard for non-core official acts, the Court did not adhere to Youngstown. His entire argument breaks down.
How do you not see this? The case pays lip service to an unrelated civil case, yet it doesn’t even follow the guideposts established by Youngstown or Jackson’s concurrence thereof.
“State the standard”….give an example of what that would look like
I would disagree with your summary.
“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. ” – this is the same as “…absolute…exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” so that sticks.
“As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.” – this makes the immunity for “other official acts” presumptive unless otherwise determined, because of the opening line of the quote: …”the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office”
Essentially they reference you give asserts:
1. There is a presumption of immunity for all official acts
2. The immunity for core constitutional powers is absolute
3. The other duties are not yet classified as absolute, thus remain presumptive until otherwise determined that they must be absolute