Supreme Court Ruled 6-3 that former presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct involving official acts during tenure in office
Posted by freedomforall 10 months, 1 week ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in a 6-3 vote that former presidents, including Trump, enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct involving official acts during tenure in office, but he's not immune from unofficial acts.
The decision - which kicks the ball back to the lower court - 'all but ensures' that a trial won't happen in Trump's classified documents case before the November election.
The justices, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, said a federal appeals court was too categorical in rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, ruling for the first time that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for some official acts taken while in office. The majority ordered the lower courts to revisit the case to decide the extent of the allegations that are off limits to prosecution.
"Just as former presidents have immunity from civil liability for official acts, they have immunity from criminal prosecution unless they are impeached and removed from office for the crime alleged. This decision is supported by the writings of the framers of the Constitution, the text of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent," wrote X user Martin Harry.
As constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley notes, now "the issue is whether what constitutes official acts," adding that the ruling will "further delay the lower court proceedings, but Trump will have to argue that his actions fall within these navigational beacons."
"The lower court judge has been highly favorable for Jack Smith in the past. Yet the court is arguing that there is a presumption of immunity for their official acts beyond the absolute immunity on core constitutional powers.""
"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in a 6-3 vote that former presidents, including Trump, enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct involving official acts during tenure in office, but he's not immune from unofficial acts.
The decision - which kicks the ball back to the lower court - 'all but ensures' that a trial won't happen in Trump's classified documents case before the November election.
The justices, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, said a federal appeals court was too categorical in rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, ruling for the first time that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for some official acts taken while in office. The majority ordered the lower courts to revisit the case to decide the extent of the allegations that are off limits to prosecution.
"Just as former presidents have immunity from civil liability for official acts, they have immunity from criminal prosecution unless they are impeached and removed from office for the crime alleged. This decision is supported by the writings of the framers of the Constitution, the text of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent," wrote X user Martin Harry.
As constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley notes, now "the issue is whether what constitutes official acts," adding that the ruling will "further delay the lower court proceedings, but Trump will have to argue that his actions fall within these navigational beacons."
"The lower court judge has been highly favorable for Jack Smith in the past. Yet the court is arguing that there is a presumption of immunity for their official acts beyond the absolute immunity on core constitutional powers.""
Wait, piranha just swam into my mind. On second thought, that could be too fast. :-(
there was in King George's treatment of the 13 colonies.
The time to shoot the D.C. traitors passed long ago.
Shooting is far too soft a punishment for D.C.
NIFO. It's the only way to be sure.
Any trouble-making plants go to jail? Nope.
But I think China Joe is gonna acompletely skate along with that quid pro quo BuyMe influence peddling racket his crime family ran even before he was elected president.
He has a D beside his name.
treason is NOT protected
Criminal treason with the border ain't the same as a president screwing something up.
Hmm, new thought~~Candidate Biden did know certain Democrats were behind rigging the election. That was BEFORE he became a usurping sock puppet for a president.
He even admitted it!~~https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview...
Admitting both that and withholding a billion bucks to get a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter fired are indeed signs of either utter stupidity or dementia.
It was no act. And SHE WANTED that question. Because she was a female asking the question, which is what made it sting so much. And Trump handled it like a "Master Persuader" (Scott Adams). He deflected 90% of the energy of that shot.
It certainly helped define Trump.
And frankly, I stopped watching Megyn after that attack.
It took me a long time to circle back to see if she was worth listening to again...
they always project onto us what they are doing
now was that an act on her part?
way back then
it said something to the effect that is is a federal crime to deprive someone of their rights
so why can't this law be used against a whole host of people?
the anti-gun nuts
those pushing DEI
the federal alphabet agencies
all those seek to deprive We the People of our Rights given by God, protected by the US Constitution
https://youtu.be/c91XUyg9iWM?t=65
So, Biden's ALSO covered by this ruling...should Trump and the People be concerned?
Except for Democrats and other servants of the Deep State.
But that does not seem to be the case, according to the Malfeasant Media mewling going down at present.
However immunity does not apply to the crimes he committed while he was VP or his 48 years while in Congress.
And people say he did nothing noteworthy as a Congress Critter or VP.
48 years of selling out his country for access is certainly noteworthy, not to mention prosecutable by law.
The abuse suffered by Trump after the statute of limitations had run out sets the president that the statute of limitations no longer has any teeth.
Load more comments...