I posted this in the wrong thread earlier so it's a bit behind the beat, but...

All of the following is from scotus blog:

Turning to some of the specific allegations against Trump, the majority ruled that Trump cannot be prosecuted for his alleged efforts to “leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors.”

With regard to the allegation that Trump attempted to pressure his former vice president, Mike Pence, in his role as president of the senate, to reject the states’ electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures, the court deemed Trump “presumptively immune” from prosecution on the theory that the president and vice president are acting officially when they discuss their official responsibilities. On the other hand, Roberts observed, the vice president’s role as president of the senate is not an executive branch role. The court therefore left it for the district court to decide whether prosecuting Trump for this conduct would intrude on the power and operation of the executive branch.

The court did the same for the allegations in the indictment regarding Trump’s interactions with private individuals and state officials, attempting to convince them to change electoral votes in his favor, as well as Trump’s tweets leading up to the Jan. 6 attacks and his speech on the Ellipse that day. Making this determination, Roberts wrote, will require “a close analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations.”

Roberts rejected the government’s contention that, even if Trump has immunity for his official acts, prosecutors can still use evidence about those official acts to make their case to a jury – for example, to prove that Trump knew that his election-fraud claims were false. “That proposal,” Roberts stressed, “threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly — invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.”

Pardon any redundancies, but particularly alarming is that they would explicitly declare the president's immunity in the fake elector scheme. So everything else gets kicked back to the lower court on this fool's errand of parsing the "official" from the "unofficial," but just to be clear, leaning on state authorities to submit fake electors for the purpose of flipping the election in his favor, that's official business. Just doing the People's work. We can't restrict the president's ability to do the presidential work of colluding with top–level officials to enact a coup d'etat. 

Last edited by Rampop II (7/03/2024 3:58 am)

Jinnistan wrote:

Here's an interesting hypothetical conundrum for SCOUTS to figure out:  Let's say that Trump wins and decides to prosecute Biden for, I dunno, whatever.  And SCOTUS says, "Oh no, you can't do that to a former president" and Trump says, "Yeah but what are you gonna do, I'm immune from whatever and I have enough support in Congress (because I maybe fixed their elections through "official acts") not to impeach me."
 

Are you talking about what, at least in this world we are now in, will be the logical outcome of all this.

Jinnistan wrote:

Here's an interesting hypothetical conundrum for SCOUTS to figure out:  Let's say that Trump wins and decides to prosecute Biden for, I dunno, whatever.  And SCOTUS says, "Oh no, you can't do that to a former president" and Trump says, "Yeah but what are you gonna do, I'm immune from whatever and I have enough support in Congress (because I maybe fixed their elections through "official acts") not to impeach me."

Maybe John Roberts will keep up that painful looking smile of his.
 

There is at least one op-ed that is seriously considering this possibility.

First, earlier in the opinion, the majority makes a big deal of how the president has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute” and that “his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination.” So how is it that the Supreme Court is taking it on itself to forbid a sitting president from prosecuting a former one? You’d think that authority wouldn’t be “subject to further judicial examination.”

Rampop: "OK, I'm less horrified now that I've read it. Well, I've read Roberts' part, anyway. It's a slap in the face, and it's shitty, but it's not the crowning of the president, nor is it the end of democracy. Mostly it's just another dodge, a delay wrapped in a request for clarification, depending on how you look at it. They did specifically point out that the president is free to lean on his attorney general if he wants, can fire or threaten to fire him if he wants, and can launch an investigation into whomever he pleases, therefore his dealings with his AG are immune from prosecution. But they didn't say Trump was off the hook for the fake elector scheme. They only said he's free to bully his AG over it. As for most everything else Trump is charged with, SCOTUS has kicked the rest of it it back down to the lower court for clarification. They talk a decent game, eg. this will set one of the most monumental precedents in the nation's history so you've got to be ultra–specific on paper about what things you're charging him with that are not protected under his broad constitutional powers and won't inadvertently clip the wings of future presidents in unintended ways. The decision is long–winded but not overly complicated, just redundant. And with a strong whiff of smokescreen. But they indicate that they're not beyond finding Trump guiltiy for something, and that the lower court might still have time to clarify what exactly they want to charge him with that falls safely outside the scope of presidential authority. 
Thomas added something nit–picking the legitimacy of the special counsel. I skimmed it.
I'm halfway through Barrett and I'm taking a break. Unless there are any stark surprises, the president has not been crowned emperor."

That was earlier, now here are some choice Barrett quotes:

Barrett:...Sorting private from official conduct sometimes will be difficult—but not always. Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. See, e.g., App. 208. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. See post, at 27–28 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). The Constitution vests power to appoint Presidential electors in the States. Art. II, §1, cl. 2; see also Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U. S. 578, 588–589 (2020). And while Congress has a limited role in that process, see Art. II, §1, cls. 3–4, the President has none. In short, a President has no legal authority—and thus no official capacity—to influence how the States appoint their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct.

I do not join Part III–C… which holds that the Constitution limits the introduction of protected conduct as evidence in a criminal prosecution of a President, beyond the limits afforded by executive privilege. See ante, at 30–32. I disagree with that holding; on this score, I agree with the dissent. See post, at 25–27 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable. ...To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability.
I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury. Ante, at 31. But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis. Most importantly, a trial court can exclude evidence of the President’s protected conduct “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice” or “confusing the issues.” Fed. Rule Evid. 403; see also Rule 105 (requiring the court to “restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly”). The balance is more likely to favor admitting evidence of an official act in a bribery prosecution, for instance, than one in which the protected conduct has little connection to the charged offense. And if the evidence comes in, the trial court can instruct the jury to consider it only for lawful purposes. See Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U. S. 200, 206–207 (1987). I see no need to depart from that familiar and time-tested procedure here.

...a President facing prosecution may challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment. If that challenge fails, however, he must stand trial.

 
Your Honor, could you repeat that last part, please?

He must stand trial!

...up next, Justice Sotormayor in: THE DISSENT!

Last edited by Rampop II (7/04/2024 4:34 am)

Oh it's ugly, and it's stinky, it implies immunity where none formerly, existed, at least not on paper. Sotormayor eviscerates the whole "official acts" argument as baseless and goes into great detail about examples on paper making the case that a president can absolutely be held criminally liable for crimes committed as "official" acts. She points to the example of "Bribery" being explicitly identified as punishable under Article II, conduct "which implicates official acts almost by definition." 

It seems to me that this "official acts" approach was concocted to provide an excuse for deferring the case and once again avoiding the optics reminiscent of the 2000 election. But as Sotormayor points out, if the majority is so concerned about cautious language, they might take a look at what their own words, so focused on not limiting presidential power, just expanded presidential power beyond anything previously envisioned. The more cynical take of course is that the majority were deliberately expanding said power, and possibly for the express purpose of protecting Trump.

The majority argument contends that the prosecutors did a rush job and weren't clear enough about what exactly the president did that was beyond the scope of his authority. That sounds like a dodge, to me, but I haven't read the full text of the charges made against him. I want to know if prosecutors did fuck it up. It's not like that's unprecedented (Fanni Willis). 

So the majority sends prosecution on what is a largely wild goose chase: make something stick that doesn't force us to prevent presidents from assassinating terrorists or whatever in the future, and for which you have enough evidence without needing evidence resulting from the execution of "official acts." 

It's a shit sandwich, but I'm seeing it as a shit sandwich closer to being on–par with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, indefinite detention, abandonment of habeas corpus, the Patriot Act, "too big to fail," the pardoning of Nixon,   the granting of "limited" presidential power to wage undeclared war, all undeniable deviations from the Constitution that expanded presidential power and weakened the power of the citizenry to seek redress for their grievances. 

I'm glad the lower courts are being given another chance to weigh in; maybe they'll find a way to pierce the walls of bullshit into which the majority is trying to encase them. 

I dread the thought of another Trump presidency, but the only thing that can stand in the way of that is the American voter. If America votes Trump back in, then I'm afraid America deserves him. And we'll keep elevating more monstrosities like him until we wise up.

Trump remains a convicted felon no matter what. Even if he pardons himself, he thereby implicitly admits guilt, but either way he remains a convicted felon. It'll be interesting to see the contortion act by which SCOTUS will try to justify crimes committed outside of his presidency — like the hush money, fraud, and defamation — as "official acts." 

I'm only relieved it's not checkmate for democracy. Not yet, anyway. And Supreme Court decisions can be overturned. It's a long view and it's cold comfort in light of the dire circumstances. We thought Dubya was the end of the world (and it might still turn out that way), but if we endured four years of Trump, maybe, just maybe we can find a way to survive another four. Then at least we'll officially be done with him (unless the MAGA forces in Congress repeal term limits as well). 

If the MAGA army is truly determined to infiltrate the ranks of law enforcement and the military for the purpose of carrying out a coup d'etat or civil war, then, well... there it is. That pretty much narrows our options. 

Happy Fourth, for what it's worth, and here's sending love to our upstairs neighbors. Please pardon our noise and smoke. We'll try not to start any wildfires.

Jinnistan wrote:

Just lay back and enjoy it, America.  Or else.

Rampop II wrote:

Rolling Stone: The jailed Fyre Festival guy, Billy McFarland, is now helping Trump with his blackface...

The headline is amusing but the article wiped the smirk off my face. Along with the recent Daily Show segment featuring Black Americans proudly proclaiming their support for Trump, no matter how much stupid racist shit comes out of his fraudulent face, this shit just brings me to an angry new low.

 

The people featured in that article are in no way representative of any group (except dumb trashy pop stars), but the implications — that people might actually vote based on what these idiots say, and that people as dumb as 50 Cent even exist — are still depressing. 

And the Daily Show segment only features six people, possibly hand–picked, so not enough people to draw any conclusions. So maybe I'm falling for some of that attention–grabbing, speculative reporting, and need to lay off the doomscrolling. 

If America votes this Golem in for a second term, then we deserve him. 

The Gish gallop: 
A rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by abandoning formal debating principles, providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments and that are impossible to address adequately in the time alloted to the opponent. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.

Spreading (pronounced spreeding in this case, a blend of "speed" and "reading"):
The act of speaking extremely fast during a competitive debating event, with the intent that one's opponent will be penalized for failing to respond to all arguments raised. The tactic relies on the fact that "failing to answer all opposing arguments" is an easy criterion for judges to award a win on, and that speaking fast and fielding an overwhelming number of distinct arguments can be a viable strategy.

Firehose of falsehood, also known as firehosing:
A propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (such as news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle:
An internet adage coined in 2013 by Alberto Brandolini, an Italian programmer, that emphasizes the effort of debunking misinformation, in comparison to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. The law states:
"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."

(Not AI apparently)

Now the reports are that Trump wasn't shot, but that the shooter hit one of his teleprompters and Trump was cut with a flying piece of broken glass shard.

I'm anxious to hear the back story on this shooter.