You're viewing a single thread.
I'm aware that presidents are allowed to do what they like now, as long as it's "official". I'm not aware of what republicans are saying biden isn't allowed to do, though. Can someone please fill me in?
Biden has to do it first. Then the republicans decide it’s unofficial and change him. Works great!
There is zero ambiguity in that. I'm so glad we are very clear on the definition.
It's untested. The SC didn't define what "official" means.
So when it comes into question, it can be kicked back up to them to decide on a case-by-case basis.
The Chief Justice did give two examples, as a kind of playbook for Trump and the people behind Project 2025. The two things he mentions that for sure fall within the absolute can't investigate/question/use as evidence/prosecute "official" acts are:
- pardons (they may pardon anyone for anything for any price)
- command their Attorney General (DOJ) - which they can then use #1 to cover them for any illegal requests they carry out
You forgot "use the military".
That's it. Use the military in any way and it's official. Have Seal Team 6 murder your opponents, and it's official. Drop a 2000lbs bomb on the political convention of your opponents, and it's offical.
What Roberts didn't do, was say what counts as unofficial. He spent a bunch of time listing out times when the president is completely immune from prosecution, and not a single sentence for when he can be prosecuted.
Mostly because he couldn't think of any, Not a one because he wants Trump to be the next king.
Roberts did not list the military as one of the "official acts" that would be immune, because Trump doesn't need the military yet to stay out of jail. The list was a blue print to keeping Trump out of jail should he win the election. The military would however likely fall under what the majority of the SCOTUS would call an action that would have "presumed immunity", but they really left that up to the SCOTUS to decide on a case by case basis (aka does it help Trump or one of the Justice's "friends").
Commanding the military is one of the examples Roberts gave as an always Official act that comes with complete immunity. It was talked about very briefly in the decision, and expanded upon in the dissents because the dissents pointed out that using seal team 6 to kill Americans is now completely legal.
I did find the part that listed the military as one of the Presidents office acts, you are correct on that. I also found this on page 62, that is the basis for the questioning about Seal Team 6 during arguments, and again in the SCOTUS descent. I read it as effectively saying that if the President uses police or military to do an "unlawful killing" then because they are "exempt" he would be immune. So the President isn't allowed to murder in a foreign country, but if he uses the military it's an official act and exempt? This reads to me like it only stops the President from personally being a Rambo, carrying out hit jobs, but Trump was a draft dodger (so ...). Any lawyers here? I don't see an instance of the President carrying out an "unlawful" killing without using the police or military. Except if maybe this is one of those things left over from when a President would duel, or people in Congress would bludgeon someone with a cane?
Congress has concurrent authority over many Government functions, and it may sometimes use that authority to regulate the President’s official conduct, including by criminal statute. Article II poses no barrier to prosecution in such cases.
I would thus assess the validity of criminal charges predicated on most official acts—i.e., those falling outside of the President’s core executive power—in two steps. The first question is whether the relevant criminal statute reaches the President’s official conduct. Not every broadly worded statute does. For example, §956 covers conspiracy to murder in a foreign country and does not expressly exclude the President’s decision to, say, order a hostage rescue mission abroad. 18 U. S. C. §956(a). **The underlying murder statute, however, covers only “unlawful” killings. §1111. The Office of Legal Counsel has interpreted that phrase to reflect a public-authority exception for official acts involving the military and law enforcement. **
Here's a lawyer's take on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQ43yyJvgs
It's worse than you think.
#2 is because, in the election interference case against Trump, one piece of evidence being used by the prosecution is that Trump instructed his Attorney General to send letters alleging that mass voter fraud was found to several state election officials, despite knowing that claim was false.
SCOTUS essentially ruled that even if that action could be considered a crime, Trump is immune from punishment since it's an "official act".
Which is patently absurd, to be absolutely clear. Every Justice that agreed to it is a fucking liar, and should be charged with violating their oaths and treason against the Republic and its people.
Or executed by official act. Whatever.