Supreme Court Ruling on if a sitting president can be charged.

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,558
744
113
59
Alberta
Is that your reading of the ruling . Wow reading comprehension or what . And from a highly acclaimed author to boot .
I haven't read the ruling, I'm only asking because nobody is being real clear on either side.
But listen, thanks for being a dick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B00Mer

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,558
7,592
113
Washington DC
I haven't read the ruling, I'm only asking because nobody is being real clear on either side.
But listen, thanks for being a dick.
Allow me: the Court held that there are three categories of immunity for a President's actions:

Absolute immunity for any acts that fall within the exclusive Constitutional purview of the President. Examples would be negotiating treaties and ordering the armed forces.

Presumptive immunity (but the presumption can be overcome upon a sufficient showing that the act was not "in his official capacity") for other acts where the President shares responsibility with Congress (i.e,, the President is subject to laws passed by Congress in how the Pres carries out the duties). For example, spending allocated funds for purposes outside the allocation.

No immunity for "purely private" conduct, even though he's the Pres. An example would be if he finds someone's wife at a state dinner attractive and "grabs her by the pussy."

There's about a gazillion shades of grey in there, and it will no doubt play out for the next several decades.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,248
8,665
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
No immunity for "purely private" conduct, even though he's the Pres. An example would be if he finds someone's wife at a state dinner attractive and "grabs her by the pussy."

There's about a gazillion shades of grey in there, and it will no doubt play out for the next several decades.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: IdRatherBeSkiing

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,265
2,177
113
New Brunswick
Allow me: the Court held that there are three categories of immunity for a President's actions:

Absolute immunity for any acts that fall within the exclusive Constitutional purview of the President. Examples would be negotiating treaties and ordering the armed forces.

Presumptive immunity (but the presumption can be overcome upon a sufficient showing that the act was not "in his official capacity") for other acts where the President shares responsibility with Congress (i.e,, the President is subject to laws passed by Congress in how the Pres carries out the duties). For example, spending allocated funds for purposes outside the allocation.

No immunity for "purely private" conduct, even though he's the Pres. An example would be if he finds someone's wife at a state dinner attractive and "grabs her by the pussy."

There's about a gazillion shades of grey in there, and it will no doubt play out for the next several decades.

From what I'm understanding from the lawyers I've been watching about this case, it's the Presumptive immunity that's the huge issue. Because the case could be made that what might seem like it's not covered under it, actually could be and visa versa. And that only the courts (or let's be honest, SCOTUS) now has the authority to deem if it's Presumptive or not, and only after the fact.

While people are throwing out the "He could order Seal Team 6 to..." and Trump could get away with it, the same could not be said for Biden (if you go with SCOTUS being biased in favor of Trump).

Then there's the thought that a Dem president won't abuse the Presumptive Immunity idea out of the principle and 'regard' for the Rule of Law, but a Republican - not even Trump, but any of the current wackadoo type Republicans - WOULD use it, abuse it and likely get away with it.

So for the New York case; Private act would be the cover up for Stormy, but now the question is, would Presumptive Immunity cover the fact he signed off checks to pay Cohen, because he was in office at the time, and that those who testified, some of what they said were while he was President, and thus under that Presumptive Immunity. That's what has to be figured out now.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
26,972
7,160
113
B.C.
I haven't read the ruling, I'm only asking because nobody is being real clear on either side.
But listen, thanks for being a dick.
Why , it is obvious that gunning down people in the street is not in the Presidents job description . Over the top scenarios do not foster serious discussion . Sorry if it seems like I am targeting you , but only because I feel you are too smart yet allow vested interests to inform your opinion .
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,558
7,592
113
Washington DC
From what I'm understanding from the lawyers I've been watching about this case, it's the Presumptive immunity that's the huge issue. Because the case could be made that what might seem like it's not covered under it, actually could be and visa versa. And that only the courts (or let's be honest, SCOTUS) now has the authority to deem if it's Presumptive or not, and only after the fact.

While people are throwing out the "He could order Seal Team 6 to..." and Trump could get away with it, the same could not be said for Biden (if you go with SCOTUS being biased in favor of Trump).

Then there's the thought that a Dem president won't abuse the Presumptive Immunity idea out of the principle and 'regard' for the Rule of Law, but a Republican - not even Trump, but any of the current wackadoo type Republicans - WOULD use it, abuse it and likely get away with it.

So for the New York case; Private act would be the cover up for Stormy, but now the question is, would Presumptive Immunity cover the fact he signed off checks to pay Cohen, because he was in office at the time, and that those who testified, some of what they said were while he was President, and thus under that Presumptive Immunity. That's what has to be figured out now.
As to the last bit, they may have to drop all the charges (remember, he was convicted on 34 counts) that have to do with what he did about the Stormy Daniels affair while he was president. But he was not president when he committed several of the crimes in the indictment. They may, probably will, have to scrub the whole thing and have a new trial, but those charges are still there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah