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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by HumblyTossed »

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…

The subtlety in this is it makes the Supreme Court King makers. They, ultimately, get to decide what is official.

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

#942

Post by kristjansson »

r_sreeram wrote: post #835
asdff wrote: post #447

Can anyone pencil out the real danger of this position? Sotomayors opinion seems to posit that a president can receive a bribe and pardon someone for that and this is an official, immune act. However, I don't think soliciting a bribe would be considered an official act of the POTUS, and by what I have been able to understand from this opinion would still be subject to prosecution. I also think that this opinion seems…

The article explains this concern: > One example not relevant to this case but which came up in arguments was the hypothetical payment of a bribe in return for an ambassadorial appointment. Under Monday’s decision, a former president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe, but prosecutors could not mention the official act, the appointment, in their case. So, imagine: Prosecution: You took a bribe! Defense: Bribe?…

Roberts attempts to address this in the majority opinion:

> JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). 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.

It seems a little contradictory ("second-guess their propriety"? isn't that the point of a bribery indictment?), but the outline is clear, I think. Prosecutors are restricted from 'probing' the act (asking for records, testimony, etc. from the executive branch) but can use all evidence they otherwise would. The official act can be mentioned. Accepting the bribe is the prohibited, unofficial act for which the president enjoys no immunity from prosecution.

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

#944

Post by specialist »

crazygringo wrote: post #240
treeFall wrote: post #98

>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. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/180…

I see a lot of people here in the comments claiming that this is still knee-jerk, or silly, or obviously that would not be an "official act". To the contrary -- this is an explicit example that came up during oral arguments, where a Trump lawyer specifically claimed that indeed, Trump could not be convicted criminally of this (unless he had first been impeached and convicted). Nowhere in the majority opinion does it…

> ...is not a misreading or a mistake.

Nice bit of jujitsu by Trump's defense. Make an outrageous claim so out of bounds that any one who quotes you sounds like a lunatic.

Surely the critic is exagerating, lying, offbase, or... ? No one would seriously claim they could murder some rando on Fifth Ave in broad daylight and get away with it. Right?!

Results in opponents discrediting themselves.

Brilliant.

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

#945

Post by westurner »

westurner wrote: post #932

The Constitution reads: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, [...] The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. How does the comma matter in contracts? This: "Impeachment for, and Conviction of" Is distinct in meani…

The Constitution reads:

  Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,

  [...]

  The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
> Such would imply that presidents can be Impeached and Judged, and Convicted.

Convicted just as other citizens with Limited Privileges and Immunities.

OPINION: In the US Constitution, removal upon "Impeachment for" is distinct from removal for "Conviction of". Thereby there is removal from office for both: a) Impeachment by the Judgement of the House and Senate, and also by b) Conviction by implied existing criminal procedure for non-immune acts including "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Conviction is not wrought through Impeachment by the House & Senate, who can only remove from office.

Neither is Arrest Removal from Office, nor is Removal from Office Arrest.

Thereby, a President (like all other citizens) can be Convicted and then Impeached.

That the Executive's own DOJ doesn't prosecute a sitting President is simply a courtesy.

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

#946

Post by mcphage »

georgeplusplus wrote: post #910
adriand wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you have to resort to such an extreme scenario then the ruling probably is a good one.

Did you seriously just argue that "if this decision has the potential for extreme negative consequences, then it must be a good decision"?

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

#947

Post by tiltowait »

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…

Doesn’t the ruling say the lower courts have to go back and determine which acts were and were not official?

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

#948

Post by kaba0 »

scelerat wrote: post #920
adriand wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Seal Team 6 example keeps getting batted around and that's unfortunate because it would be an extreme and obviously outrageous attack which would attract much unwanted attention. Part of the ruling was that conversations between DOJ and President constitute the President's official duties and "therefore" (per the three judges appointed by Trump, one who expressed sympathies with Jan 6 rioters, and yet another who…

[flagged]

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

#949

Post by dantheman »

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…

You mean like Obama assassinating a US citizen?
Post reply on HN