5 ms·

The judgement says that the President has immunity (in certain narrow cases). It does not say that members of the military have immunity for following an unlawf

The judgement says that the President has immunity (in certain narrow cases). It does not say that members of the military have immunity for following an unlawful order. It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity.

ModernMech 2y ago
> (in certain narrow cases) Again, citation needed. The whole problem today is that the category of immunity is so vague so as to be overly broad. > It does not say that members of the military have immunity for following an unlawful order. No, but it does say the President has an unreviewable pardon power to absolve them from any crime they are ordered by the President to commit. > It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity. It's now also very easy for a court to decide that it is. That is the problem.
- leereeves 2y ago
  The citation is the Supreme Court ruling itself, which I had assumed people participating in this discussion were familiar with. It grants "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution [only] for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority". That is a narrow standard. The only acts in this case which met that standard were discussions with Justice Department officials. Everything else in this case was in fact remanded, and it remains within the power of the lower courts to deny Trump immunity on all other aspects of the case.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    Thank you for the citation (citations are not limited to documents, but often and especially in a large document of hundreds of pages, direct one to specific passages, as you did did here). Your citation is exactly the bit that makes the President immune for directing Seal Team 6 to execute a political rival -- directing the military is within the President's "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority". According to the Supreme Court, such a direction is now "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution".
    - TeeMassive 2y ago
      Again, removing elected officials by any other process other than the what the Constitution provides for is not within the Presidents' power. This is clearly an unlawful act that all military members are obligated not to obey.
      - seizethegdgap 2y ago
        But the President can declare a person an enemy combstant, or have them arrested in the name of national security, and their private records are now inadmissible. > Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30-32.
        TeeMassive 2y ago
        > But the President can declare a person an enemy combstant, "Citation needed"
        DEADMINCE 2y ago
        Read the judgement and stop making assumptions.
        TeeMassive 2y ago
        I did, cite the relevant part that I missed then.
        seizethegdgap 2y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
      - ttyprintk 2y ago
        Trump's influencers work around that in a different way: by singling out individuals for military tribunals[1], he is not using the pardon power to deprive them of due process, or excuse someone else from doing so. The military tribunal deprives them of due process. But trying a civilian in a military tribunal is only constitutional if a civilian court is unavailable, which happens out of convenience in places like Guantanemo Bay. [1] nytimes, https://archive.ph/fz52u https://archive.ph/fz52u
- TeeMassive 2y ago
  > Again, citation needed. Read the judgement. It's literally in the first pages. > No, but it does say the President has an unreviewable pardon power to absolve them from any crime they are ordered by the President to commit. A President can't pardon non-federal crimes or overturn the a conviction through impeachment as it would remove power from Congress and the Senate, which a President can't remove. > It's now also very easy for a court to decide that it is. That is the problem. Believing that ordering the assassination of elected officials would be considered lawful by judges is just so insane that it makes Alex Jones look like a legal scholar.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    > Read the judgement. It's literally in the first pages. I read it. I read that it's absolute immunity in core function, which seems pretty damn broad to me. Can you explain how nonreviewable power over control of the military and DOJ fits the description of "limited"? > A President can't pardon non-federal crimes He won't need to -- the whole point of giving the President this broad unreviewable power was so that non federal officials couldn't harass the president by charging him with crimes for carrying out his official duties. Where again what constitutes an "official duty" is left up to SCOTUS. > Believing that ordering the assassination of elected officials would be considered lawful by judges is just so insane that it makes Alex Jones look like a legal scholar. The prospect of this very ruling was considered so insane by legal scholars so as to be implausible, and yet here we are! Judges don't have to find the assassination of elected officials to be legal, they just have to find the Supreme Court doesn't allow them to use most of the evidence of that crime at trial, and that they must presume motive for the assassination was good. How do you prosecute that case? Can't subpoena any evidence because it wouldn't survive an "absolute immunity" challenge by the President's lawyers. That is the implication of the plain text of this law, it's with Justice Sotomayor is worried about, and I think it's pretty beneath you to try to compare her vast level of expertise to Alex Jones.
    - TeeMassive 2y ago
      > read that it's absolute immunity in core function, which seems pretty damn broad to me It's limited in scope, and still subject to impeachment, which immunity comes from because otherwise going through impeachment would be pointless. > Can you explain how nonreviewable power over control of the military and DOJ fits the description of "limited"? The President can't just kill anyone he wants, it's just a power he doesn't have. The President is not judge, jury and executioner. Having control doesn't mean you can do what you want with it. > e won't need to -- the whole point of giving the President this broad unreviewable power was so that non federal officials couldn't harass the president by charging him with crimes for carrying out his official duties. You're beginning to understand > Where again what constitutes an "official duty" is left up to SCOTUS. And? > The prospect of this very ruling was considered so insane by legal scholars so as to be implausible, and yet here we are! These same legal scholars were fine with not charging the last 4 presidents with war crimes and other atrocities. Because it was always the case, nothing has changed except limiting the scope of presidential immunity. > Judges don't have to find the assassination of elected officials to be legal, they just have to find the Supreme Court doesn't allow them to use most of the evidence of that crime at trial, and that they must presume motive for the assassination was good. How do you prosecute that case? Can't subpoena any evidence because it wouldn't survive an "absolute immunity" challenge by the President's lawyers. If the armed forces are killing politicians then at this point the Constitution is a mere piece of paper and no amount of super-majority or SCOTUS rulings is going to make a difference. > That is the implication of the plain text of this law, it's with Justice Sotomayor is worried about, and I think it's pretty beneath you to try to compare her vast level of expertise to Alex Jones. Sotomayor is an emotional militant judge and not taken seriously outside left leaning political militant circles. The oral hearings over the vaccine mandates is a good example: "but there are millions of dead children" she said crying. Yes, she did that. This is JFK assasination level conspiracy theory whether you like it or not.
tremon 2y ago
It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity. What do you think the odds are for this Supreme Court to declare e.g. that shredding official documents (or moving them to the president's private property) is an official act?
- TeeMassive 2y ago
  Only the President can decide what happens to his records and documents. This has been made clear under Navy v. Egan. Congress can pass no laws regarding classification or record keeping. The Presidential Records Act has a caveat where the "personal records" of the President belong exclusively to him, and it's the President who decides what is personal or not.
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    That's a fascinating interpretation of PRA, which establishes public ownership of all Presidential records. Specifying if a record is private is the responsibility of his/her staff and done at the time of filing. Of course, Trump has tried to quote from the PRA, but he's not charged with any PRA violations, but under the Espionage Act.
    - TeeMassive 2y ago
      > That's a fascinating interpretation of PRA But is it wrong? That's what the legal scholars I've read said, otherwise the PRA wouldn't be constitutional.
      - ttyprintk 2y ago
        I’ll take your word for it, but PRA is off-topic.

ModernMech 2y ago

> (in certain narrow cases) Again, citation needed. The whole problem today is that the category of immunity is so vague so as to be overly broad. > It does not say that members of the military have immunity for following an unlawful order. No, but it does say the President has an unreviewable pardon power to absolve them from any crime they are ordered by the President to commit. > It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity. It's now also very easy for a court to decide that it is. That is the problem.

leereeves 2y ago
The citation is the Supreme Court ruling itself, which I had assumed people participating in this discussion were familiar with. It grants "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution [only] for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority". That is a narrow standard. The only acts in this case which met that standard were discussions with Justice Department officials. Everything else in this case was in fact remanded, and it remains within the power of the lower courts to deny Trump immunity on all other aspects of the case.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  Thank you for the citation (citations are not limited to documents, but often and especially in a large document of hundreds of pages, direct one to specific passages, as you did did here). Your citation is exactly the bit that makes the President immune for directing Seal Team 6 to execute a political rival -- directing the military is within the President's "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority". According to the Supreme Court, such a direction is now "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution".
  - TeeMassive 2y ago
    Again, removing elected officials by any other process other than the what the Constitution provides for is not within the Presidents' power. This is clearly an unlawful act that all military members are obligated not to obey.
    - seizethegdgap 2y ago
      But the President can declare a person an enemy combstant, or have them arrested in the name of national security, and their private records are now inadmissible. > Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30-32.
      - TeeMassive 2y ago
        > But the President can declare a person an enemy combstant, "Citation needed"
        DEADMINCE 2y ago
        Read the judgement and stop making assumptions.
        TeeMassive 2y ago
        I did, cite the relevant part that I missed then.
        seizethegdgap 2y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
    - ttyprintk 2y ago
      Trump's influencers work around that in a different way: by singling out individuals for military tribunals[1], he is not using the pardon power to deprive them of due process, or excuse someone else from doing so. The military tribunal deprives them of due process. But trying a civilian in a military tribunal is only constitutional if a civilian court is unavailable, which happens out of convenience in places like Guantanemo Bay. [1] nytimes, https://archive.ph/fz52u https://archive.ph/fz52u
TeeMassive 2y ago
> Again, citation needed. Read the judgement. It's literally in the first pages. > No, but it does say the President has an unreviewable pardon power to absolve them from any crime they are ordered by the President to commit. A President can't pardon non-federal crimes or overturn the a conviction through impeachment as it would remove power from Congress and the Senate, which a President can't remove. > It's now also very easy for a court to decide that it is. That is the problem. Believing that ordering the assassination of elected officials would be considered lawful by judges is just so insane that it makes Alex Jones look like a legal scholar.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > Read the judgement. It's literally in the first pages. I read it. I read that it's absolute immunity in core function, which seems pretty damn broad to me. Can you explain how nonreviewable power over control of the military and DOJ fits the description of "limited"? > A President can't pardon non-federal crimes He won't need to -- the whole point of giving the President this broad unreviewable power was so that non federal officials couldn't harass the president by charging him with crimes for carrying out his official duties. Where again what constitutes an "official duty" is left up to SCOTUS. > Believing that ordering the assassination of elected officials would be considered lawful by judges is just so insane that it makes Alex Jones look like a legal scholar. The prospect of this very ruling was considered so insane by legal scholars so as to be implausible, and yet here we are! Judges don't have to find the assassination of elected officials to be legal, they just have to find the Supreme Court doesn't allow them to use most of the evidence of that crime at trial, and that they must presume motive for the assassination was good. How do you prosecute that case? Can't subpoena any evidence because it wouldn't survive an "absolute immunity" challenge by the President's lawyers. That is the implication of the plain text of this law, it's with Justice Sotomayor is worried about, and I think it's pretty beneath you to try to compare her vast level of expertise to Alex Jones.
  - TeeMassive 2y ago
    > read that it's absolute immunity in core function, which seems pretty damn broad to me It's limited in scope, and still subject to impeachment, which immunity comes from because otherwise going through impeachment would be pointless. > Can you explain how nonreviewable power over control of the military and DOJ fits the description of "limited"? The President can't just kill anyone he wants, it's just a power he doesn't have. The President is not judge, jury and executioner. Having control doesn't mean you can do what you want with it. > e won't need to -- the whole point of giving the President this broad unreviewable power was so that non federal officials couldn't harass the president by charging him with crimes for carrying out his official duties. You're beginning to understand > Where again what constitutes an "official duty" is left up to SCOTUS. And? > The prospect of this very ruling was considered so insane by legal scholars so as to be implausible, and yet here we are! These same legal scholars were fine with not charging the last 4 presidents with war crimes and other atrocities. Because it was always the case, nothing has changed except limiting the scope of presidential immunity. > Judges don't have to find the assassination of elected officials to be legal, they just have to find the Supreme Court doesn't allow them to use most of the evidence of that crime at trial, and that they must presume motive for the assassination was good. How do you prosecute that case? Can't subpoena any evidence because it wouldn't survive an "absolute immunity" challenge by the President's lawyers. If the armed forces are killing politicians then at this point the Constitution is a mere piece of paper and no amount of super-majority or SCOTUS rulings is going to make a difference. > That is the implication of the plain text of this law, it's with Justice Sotomayor is worried about, and I think it's pretty beneath you to try to compare her vast level of expertise to Alex Jones. Sotomayor is an emotional militant judge and not taken seriously outside left leaning political militant circles. The oral hearings over the vaccine mandates is a good example: "but there are millions of dead children" she said crying. Yes, she did that. This is JFK assasination level conspiracy theory whether you like it or not.

tremon 2y ago

It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity. What do you think the odds are for this Supreme Court to declare e.g. that shredding official documents (or moving them to the president's private property) is an official act?

TeeMassive 2y ago
Only the President can decide what happens to his records and documents. This has been made clear under Navy v. Egan. Congress can pass no laws regarding classification or record keeping. The Presidential Records Act has a caveat where the "personal records" of the President belong exclusively to him, and it's the President who decides what is personal or not.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  That's a fascinating interpretation of PRA, which establishes public ownership of all Presidential records. Specifying if a record is private is the responsibility of his/her staff and done at the time of filing. Of course, Trump has tried to quote from the PRA, but he's not charged with any PRA violations, but under the Espionage Act.
  - TeeMassive 2y ago
    > That's a fascinating interpretation of PRA But is it wrong? That's what the legal scholars I've read said, otherwise the PRA wouldn't be constitutional.
    - ttyprintk 2y ago
      I’ll take your word for it, but PRA is off-topic.