Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#871

Post by paulddraper »

adriand wrote: post #716
kemotep wrote: post #310

My limited understanding of the ruling: The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still requ…

This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. “In its ruling, the Supreme Court decided there was no question that Mr. Trump enjoyed immunity from being prosecuted for one of those methods: his efforts to strong-arm the Justice Department into validating his false claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud. That was…

> This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival.

Immune from judicial prosecution.

Not immune from Congressional prosecution.

---

This isn't a unique concept.

For example, if SEAL Team 6 improperly kills someone on a mission, they aren't prosecuted in criminal court; they are court-martialed.

There is accountability, but due to the unique nature of the profession, it has a specialized venue.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#872

Post by paulddraper »

DEADMINCE wrote: post #818
kemotep wrote: post #310

My limited understanding of the ruling: The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still requ…

> Out of context this is quite reasonable and level headed. In context of the hyper partisan landscape US politics are today, doesn’t seem likely without a supermajority opposition to be able to bring charges against a president, In context though, it's quite terrifying given how much the US has fallen into tribalism. Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did.

> Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did.

And the other half would convict him no matter what.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#873

Post by paulddraper »

7e wrote: post #842
kemotep wrote: post #310

My limited understanding of the ruling: The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still requ…

I’m an FBI agent and I kill my wife. Am I immune from prosecution unless Congress appoints a special counsel, simply because I work in the executive branch?

No. An FBI agent and president are two different things.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#874

Post by paulddraper »

cogman10 wrote: post #567
throwadobe wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone seems to be calling this "blanket immunity" but that's not right. It's immunity for official acts which are the prerogative of the president. Basically the president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal. This doesn't mean that the president cannot be tried for some illegal act that was not their official duty. Murdering someone, for example.

What about overthrowing the government? Because that's the "offical" act of the president with today's ruling. Further, it should be noted that the lower court already did exactly what the supreme court remanded back to them. They said "we don't know what sorts of immunity are granted to a president, but if there is any they are not granted, it's overturning an election as is accused in this specific case". The supre…

> What about overthrowing the government?

Overthrowing....the government he was in charge of?

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#875

Post by DEADMINCE »

paulddraper wrote: post #872
DEADMINCE wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Out of context this is quite reasonable and level headed. In context of the hyper partisan landscape US politics are today, doesn’t seem likely without a supermajority opposition to be able to bring charges against a president, In context though, it's quite terrifying given how much the US has fallen into tribalism. Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did.

> Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did. And the other half would convict him no matter what.

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#876

Post by dudinax »

kemotep wrote: post #310

My limited understanding of the ruling: The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still requ…

There's no provision in the constitution for immunity. They made it up there's nothing reasonable about it.

Under this decision the president can commit a crime or order someone else to commit a crime, and as long as the crime is committed using a power of the office, it can't be charged.

For example, if in an official communication the president orders an officer to solicit a bribe for doing their duty, the president can't be charged.

It's ridiculous, horrible, and destructive to the constitution.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#877

Post by dudinax »

paulddraper wrote: post #872
DEADMINCE wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Out of context this is quite reasonable and level headed. In context of the hyper partisan landscape US politics are today, doesn’t seem likely without a supermajority opposition to be able to bring charges against a president, In context though, it's quite terrifying given how much the US has fallen into tribalism. Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did.

> Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did. And the other half would convict him no matter what.

That's irrelevant since he's committed a number of serious crimes.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#878

Post by dudinax »

awb wrote: post #371
kemotep wrote: post #310

My limited understanding of the ruling: The ruling states that the President is immune from prosecution while exercising official duties of the office of President but can be investigated by a special counsel that is appointed by an act of Congress, and if successfully impeached and convicted can then be charged with said crimes. “Unofficial” acts are not protected by this immunity but a special counsel is still requ…

On paper it makes sense. The people elect a congress charged with checking the powers of the President. States can also pass constitutional amendments to further limit or define the powers of the President. In reality, power can be consolidated to the point where these checks and balances no longer work properly.

No it doesn't. There's nothing in the constitution that grants immunity to a president and no reason why Donald Trump had to commit the crimes he's charged with.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#879

Post by ensignavenger »

csb6 wrote: post #774
ensignavenger wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you conclude that? It is my understanding that the Nixon tapes were recordings of conversations Nixon had with campaign staff as a candidate, and as the Supreme Court held, actions taken as a candidate are not official actions and are therefore not subject to immunity.

If this ruling would have been in force back then, Nixon could have argued that the conversations were done in his official role as president. For example, a conversation with his chief of staff about ordering the CIA perform a coverup could be considered “official business” since he was talking to a top executive branch official and directing an executive branch agency to take an action. The distinction between “off…

A argument could be made for that, the counter argument would be that ordering the White House Chief of Staff to lie to investigators is a very different act to ordering the AG to investigate a purported crime. The majority opinion was pretty careful to examine the exact nature of the conversation with the AG, leaving it open that not any conversation could have been claimed as official.

Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

#880

Post by lannisterstark »

paulddraper wrote: post #872
DEADMINCE wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Out of context this is quite reasonable and level headed. In context of the hyper partisan landscape US politics are today, doesn’t seem likely without a supermajority opposition to be able to bring charges against a president, In context though, it's quite terrifying given how much the US has fallen into tribalism. Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did.

> Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did. And the other half would convict him no matter what.

Except he committed those crimes. There's nothing wrong with punishing people for crimes they committed, especially when entrusted with so much.
Post reply on HN