Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Trump v US

Ricochet
@tptb
Join to bookmark9likesJoin to like57comments

The Supreme Court has, kind of, decided the question of presidential immunity. No, the president (or former president) cannot be held criminally liable for official acts (those prescribed by the Constitution) and yes, he can be held liable for unofficial acts.

What they did not do is dive into the specifics of the Trump charges and delineate which acts were "official" and which acts were "unofficial," except for any communication Trump had directly with Justice Department officials.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts says, "The court sends the case back to the district court for it to determine other things, such as 'whether a prosecution involving Trump's attempts to influence the Vice President's oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'"

And he adds, "Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized."

Update: The Court has remanded the case back to the District Court. Now it is up to Judge Tanya Chutkan to hold pretrial hearings with the prosecution and the defense and re-examine each of the charges Jack Smith has brought in order to determine which of these fall under the umbrella of "official acts." That is going to take time and almost assures that this case will not go to trial before the November general election.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by an editor.

Discussion (57)

  • Jim George@JimGeorge
    Ricochet (View Post):
    kind of

    "Kind of"? From the opinion of the majority:

    "Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts," the ruling, written by Chief Justice Roberts, explains. "There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

    Perhaps it is just difficult for some in our severely, maybe even dangerously, divided nation today who simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge any victory for President Trump. I, on the other hand, would, with great pleasure and pride in the gradual restoration of the American Rule of Law, term this - to use the word used by the Chief Justice- an absolute victory for the former President.

    "Kind of", indeed. But then we are all familiar with the ancient legal doctrine: Reasonable minds may differ.

Scroll for later comments
+52 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 57 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.