chasfh Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 14 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said: The closest I can see the majority getting to actually defining "official act" is where that say that "[w]hen the President acts pursuant to 'constitutional and statutory authority,' he takes official action to perform the functions of his office... Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action." I would argue that POTUS has constitutional authority to be the commander in chief, but that does not equate to a free license to kill. I think in such a case, the Court would - and should - more narrowly define "official act" to include only actions naturally associated with the execution of his duties as POTUS. Commanding the bombing of a village in the Middle East against DOD advice because you illogically think a terrorist is there, and it results in dozens of innocent deaths? Probably immune. Commanding the bombing of the home of a political opponent because you want to win an election? Probably not immune. They definitely could have been more clear, but this is what SCOTUS loves to do. Send it down to the lower court, have them guess what SCOTUS wants to be the line between official and unofficial, have the case slowly trickle back upstream, have the Court of Appeals take a stab at it too, and then finally tell everyone a year or two later what they actually wanted all along. All the Court did yesterday was to create the opportunity for lower courts to litigate every single thing that’s done as to whether it’s “official” or “unofficial”, with the requisite shifting interpretations attended thereto, and completely dependent on who happens to be sitting on what bench at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 1 minute ago, MichiganCardinal said: This is some Kellyanne Conway level of nonsense. Yes, because they determined that taking the bribe after the act isn't corruption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 15 minutes ago, oblong said: Was it ever believed that Presidents didn't have immunity for official acts? That's where I keep getting hung up... like you can't prosecute W because of the Iraq War, you can't prosecute Obama for Drone Strikes. You can't prosecute Clinton for hitting the wrong targets when going after Bin Laden. I think that is what this ruling is getting too and why it was remanded back to the lower court. To beat a dead horse, there was no evidentiary hearing to clarify this exact question in a couple of Smith's charges and the judge never requested or asked for an evidentiary hearing which would have clarified what was and wasn't official. The ruling discusses the dangers of allowing for gray areas in what was or wasn't an official act and how those can be taken advantage of without clarity, of which there isn't in this case. Now Smith can clear this up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 6 minutes ago, chasfh said: All the Court did yesterday was to create the opportunity for lower courts to litigate every single thing that’s done as to whether it’s “official” or “unofficial”, with the requisite shifting interpretations attended thereto, and completely dependent on who happens to be sitting on what bench at the time. Actually the opposite was done. This also goes to why most other prosecutors refused to try this case as they didn't think there was a case as was said prior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Just now, SkyBlue said: Actually the opposite was done. This also goes to why most other prosecutors refused to try this case as they didn't think there was a case as was said prior. Wouldn’t the opposite be that the Supreme Court defined exactly what constitutes “official” and “unofficial” acts so that lower courts could follow such guidance? Did they do that and I missed it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganCardinal Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 4 minutes ago, chasfh said: All the Court did yesterday was to create the opportunity for lower courts to litigate every single thing that’s done as to whether it’s “official” or “unofficial”, with the requisite shifting interpretations attended thereto, and completely dependent on who happens to be sitting on what bench at the time. I think I would have come out with Barrett on this. There has to be some amount of immunity, lest Trump's DOJ prosecute Obama's drone strikes after Obama's DOJ prosecuted Bush's bungling of the global economy (and his War on Iraq, amongst other things overseas), but "properly conceived, the President’s constitutional protection from prosecution is narrow," and there was no need to go back down to the District Court on these specific charges, because the facial allegations in the indictment alone are clearly so far removed from the realm of official conduct. Ultimately though, as a matter of evidence for trial, I don't think you can avoid doing a piecemeal formulation of what is official and what isn't, which is getting to what SkyBlue is saying. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganCardinal Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 14 minutes ago, romad1 said: Yes, because they determined that taking the bribe after the act isn't corruption. If she wanted to come out against Thomas for all of his unethical and compromised nonsense, that would be fine. They wouldn't go anywhere, but if she wanted to bring articles against him for his out-of-court conduct, I would understand it. This is just not liking something and running for impeachment, which is straight out of the ultra-right Marjorie Taylor-Green/Kellyanne Conway/Lauren Boebert/Matt Gaetz playbook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 3 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said: If she wanted to come out against Thomas for all of his unethical and compromised nonsense, that would be fine. They wouldn't go anywhere, but if she wanted to bring articles against him for his out-of-court conduct, I would understand it. This is just not liking something and running for impeachment, which is straight out of the ultra-right Marjorie Taylor-Green/Kellyanne Conway/Lauren Boebert/Matt Gaetz playbook. The reason why I don’t like AOC. She’s 100% theater and 0% substance. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganCardinal Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Speaking of Thomas.... watching him live yesterday, he did not look well. He leaned back in his chair multiple times with a hand over his face, like he was in visceral pain. It could be just him not giving a ****, like normal. But I did make the remark to someone I was with that if it was indeed chronic pain causing him to act how he was acting, that I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't make it through another term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 11 minutes ago, chasfh said: Wouldn’t the opposite be that the Supreme Court defined exactly what constitutes “official” and “unofficial” acts so that lower courts could follow such guidance? Did they do that and I missed it? No, the case that was before them is what was ruled on and as there was no evidentiary hearing, ever, they remanded back to the lower court so they would actually do their job. Lets be honest about this, the case was always about getting to trial prior to the election and getting rid of Trump. In order to do this rules of law were NOT followed. I think it is obvious that most on this board seem to be ok with this as the goal, getting rid of Trump seems to justify the means to get there. This ruling said no, laws and rights need to be applied even when the defendent is Trump. This ruling actually protects all presidents going forward which is excellent. Now it is up to Smith to justify his indictment with an evidentiary hearing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 12 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said: If she wanted to come out against Thomas for all of his unethical and compromised nonsense, that would be fine. They wouldn't go anywhere, but if she wanted to bring articles against him for his out-of-court conduct, I would understand it. This is just not liking something and running for impeachment, which is straight out of the ultra-right Marjorie Taylor-Green/Kellyanne Conway/Lauren Boebert/Matt Gaetz playbook. Well to be fair the moron's you list don't have exclusivity on this playbook, it is found in the right and the left. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigeraholic1 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 20 minutes ago, SkyBlue said: No, the case that was before them is what was ruled on and as there was no evidentiary hearing, ever, they remanded back to the lower court so they would actually do their job. Lets be honest about this, the case was always about getting to trial prior to the election and getting rid of Trump. In order to do this rules of law were NOT followed. I think it is obvious that most on this board seem to be ok with this as the goal, getting rid of Trump seems to justify the means to get there. This ruling said no, laws and rights need to be applied even when the defendent is Trump. This ruling actually protects all presidents going forward which is excellent. Now it is up to Smith to justify his indictment with an evidentiary hearing 100% agree well said. Literally put the cart before the horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Yesterday's ruling has me cranky and fearful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 If we learn the most basic lesson from yesterday, you don't win what you don't pursue. More power to AOC. Hashtag dts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Edman85 said: Yesterday's ruling has me cranky and fearful. It shouldn't, it is ensuring that the rule of law is being followed as it wasn't. This thread as a whole has been an interesting read, this isn't directed at you to be clear. The two judges involved in Trump cases have handled the cases very differently one has continued to press for evidence to back up the indictments Smith offered in that case. The other judge has not done this and continued to expedite. The reaction on this board has been to villify one and praise the other. Praise the one who is following what the law requires the prosecution to do and condemn the one who isn't following the law. Or, did I get that backwards? Smith doesn't have a strong track record and that is continuing here. Edited July 2 by SkyBlue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 Cannon is having hearings inviting 3rd parties not even affiliated with the case. Hard pass on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 The nature of the evidence us also very different between the cases, Chutkan isn't dealing with top secret classified documents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 13 minutes ago, pfife said: Cannon is having hearings inviting 3rd parties not even affiliated with the case. Hard pass on that. Such as?? Dearie? Others?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 12 minutes ago, pfife said: The nature of the evidence us also very different between the cases, Chutkan isn't dealing with top secret classified documents. True and I don't think many disagree with you on that. Yet rule of law still is to be followed and appeals are available for which Cannon has already been overruled by the appeals court once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 3 minutes ago, SkyBlue said: Such as?? Dearie? Others?? The hearings with think tanks like it's cspan or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, SkyBlue said: True and I don't think many disagree with you on that. Yet rule of law still is to be followed and appeals are available for which Cannon has already been overruled by the appeals court once. It means there's actual rule of law compliant reasons why chutkan can go faster which you decried earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Just now, pfife said: The hearings with think tanks like it's cspan or something Apologies, recalled that after i hit post and was going to edit when you responded. I think there was one in favor of Trump and one in favor of Smith iirc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 1 hour ago, SkyBlue said: No, the case that was before them is what was ruled on and as there was no evidentiary hearing, ever, they remanded back to the lower court so they would actually do their job. Lets be honest about this, the case was always about getting to trial prior to the election and getting rid of Trump. In order to do this rules of law were NOT followed. I think it is obvious that most on this board seem to be ok with this as the goal, getting rid of Trump seems to justify the means to get there. This ruling said no, laws and rights need to be applied even when the defendent is Trump. This ruling actually protects all presidents going forward which is excellent. Now it is up to Smith to justify his indictment with an evidentiary hearing They actually in their own words in oral arguments, disregarded the facts of specific case and claimed they were making a rule for the ages. I'll take their word for it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Just now, pfife said: It means there's actual rule of law compliant reasons why chutkan can go faster which you decried earlier. I decried that there was no evidentiary hearing and I speculated that the reason for it was to get the trial in prior to the election. So, I agree that Chutkan may be able to go faster than Cannon, that doesn't allow you to forgo requirements, such as an evidentiary hearing. Now Smith does that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, pfife said: They actually in their own words in oral arguments, disregarded the facts of specific case and claimed they were making a rule for the ages. I'll take their word for it. Uh, no they didn't. Read the ruling. They remanded it back to the court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.