God, we're so fucked. SCOTUS is turning the Presidency into an autocracy, Biden refusing to get out of the way for a capable candidate...that judge sentencing Trump to jail time in the Stormy Daniels case is basically the only thing that can save us from a right-wing theocracy at this point.
Surely Trump just appeals to the SCOTUS and they free him in line with today's ruling?
Wouldn't be that simple. The Stormy Daniels case was about things that happened before he became president. Sure reimbursing Cohen might have occurred at least in part while Trump was president, but Cohen was never part of the administration. They were disguising the reimbursement as paying Cohen in his capacity as Trump's personal lawyer. So there's pretty much nothing that this ruling does to hamper this case.
That said, I have no doubts that they'd find some way to rule in his favor if an appeal managed to land in front of them. But I think he'd have to go through normal appeals first, he can't just go straight to SCOTUS.
It’ll be interesting to see how stiffing your lawyer is an official act
You're right, but I'm confident he'll get there in the end.
Yeah. The Roberts Court has been nothing if not the Court of Post-Hoc Justification. They're great at concocting the most batshit crazy of legal theories to reach the outcome they want after shopping for the perfect cases to do so. I'm absolutely positive that if/when he gets an appeal to reach SCOTUS they'll give him exactly what he wants even if they have to tie themselves in logical pretzels or even directly contradict themselves to do it.
They ruled on a goddamn hypothetical. 6-3.
None of the conservative judges are qualified to do anything except take leaves.
They've pulled that one a lot recently, haven't they? I seem to recall one of the other recent rulings, I think it was against the EPA basically being a hypothetical about a proposed rule they hadn't even actually passed yet?
SCOTUS can't do shit for state charges. Doesn't mean they won't try.
However, His legal team will argue literally any punishment is too harsh and appeal the NY state charges, which will be granted because he was a president and has money. Then it will be delayed past the election and not matter anyway because this system is not made to resist willful destruction by those entrusted to protect it.
Edit: Turns out they can. The NY prosecution has agreed to postpone charges less than a day after the ruling. Trump's team asserts that the criminal activities occurred before he was president, but since the evidence was gathered during, he can not be prosecuted. Apparently concealing evidence unrelated to the presidency is an official act...
There's move afoot by the GOP to get any state charges against the president to be elevated to the Federal court.
Guess who can pardon himself or have federal charges dropped?
That's not how Federalism works. The President is not a member of any state government, and has no immunity from state crimes. There's no way to move this case from state court to federal.
Unless you change the laws to say you can! Which was the point of the above comment.
The Constitution can't be changed that easily. There's no reason for the State of New York to give up the case, even if it were possible to do. And there's no way to compel it, considering the issue is NY State law.
They’re already trying it on appeal, though. Sure, they’re applying federal precedent to a state case, but why would Trump’s team let stop them?
They cannot currently cancel state charges, but the GOP is trying to change that. It is one of a raft of measures underway. Some are truely frightening, such as using Red State National Guard troops against non-compliant Blue States. Check out Project 2025 - the Republicans are even trying to hide their planned dictatorship.
He was not President at the time of these acts, but I doubt that would stop them.
Did you read the article? The scope of this ruling is pretty narrow.
Not that narrow. They are saying fomenting an attack on Congress and conspiring to subvert the electoral college are official acts.
Where are you getting that? That question wasn't put to SCOTUS.
Trump was charged. Trump claimed he had "absolute immunity", and didn't have to face charges. Court rules against him in this issue; he appealed. Appellate court ruled against him, sending the case back to the trial court. He appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS said he doesn't have absolute immunity, and that the limit of his immunity is on his "official acts". SCOTUS then sent the case back to the trial court. The trial court will have to determine whether his actions were "official" or "unofficial".
From the decision:
Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official re-
sponsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the Jan-
uary 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count
the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice
President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s
allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to
take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification pro-
ceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presump-
tively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
What part of that statement is about attacking Congress or subverting the electoral college?
It is certainly within the president's and vice president's responsibilities to determine whether to certify the count. They have to be able to say "no, this should not be certified".
Saying "no" can still be used as evidence of another crime, it's just not a crime in and of itself.
Trying to convince the VP to fraudulently say no to the EC count is the crime. The president and the vice president don't get to pick the next president. The electoral college does. The only legitimate reason the VP could say no to the EC count is if for some reason the count itself were wrong, in which case the VP and Senate should correct it and move on.
That, of course, wasn't the basis for the discussion. Trump was trying to get his fake electors counted, or to at least have Pence declare that he couldn't tell which electors were real.
Trying to convince the VP to fraudulently say no to the EC count is the crime
Knowingly making a false statement to the VP would, indeed, be a criminal fraud, but the passage you cited does not contemplate such an act.
Trump was trying to get his fake electors counted
That, too, is not contemplated in the passage you cited.
The mere act of talking to the VP about it is contemplated and by default (according to this ruling) protected. You can't tell the VP to change the electors without talking to him!
Edit:
Obviously the fact that the pres. committed a crime can't be considered as a reason to deny immunity, otherwise it wouldn't be immunity.
Talking to the VP about not confirming is protected. Lying to the VP about the reason why he should not confirm is not protected.
Did you find anywhere in the decision where they make an exception for lying?
The trial court is free to determine that lying to the VP for purposes of committing election fraud does not constitute an official act. The fact that they remanded the decision to the trial court instead of reversing the trial and appellate court is the "exception" you are looking for.
They denied his appeal. Ok? He claimed absolute immunity, they said "No, you only have immunity for your official acts. We aren't going to save you here. The trial court is going to burn your ass."
"The trial court is free to determine that lying to the VP for purposes of committing election fraud does not constitute an official act."
Based on what standard? How could a trial court reach such a decision in a way that won't be overturned?
The Supremos have sent this back to the courts with the message that there's only one way to decide and no plausible way to reach another conclusion that will hold up.
BTW, my Lemmy instance isn't showing replies to your comment, including my own reply, so if it didn't come across, I'm sorry but I don't know what else to try.
God, we're so fucked. SCOTUS is turning the Presidency into an autocracy, Biden refusing to get out of the way for a capable candidate...that judge sentencing Trump to jail time in the Stormy Daniels case is basically the only thing that can save us from a right-wing theocracy at this point.
Surely Trump just appeals to the SCOTUS and they free him in line with today's ruling?
Wouldn't be that simple. The Stormy Daniels case was about things that happened before he became president. Sure reimbursing Cohen might have occurred at least in part while Trump was president, but Cohen was never part of the administration. They were disguising the reimbursement as paying Cohen in his capacity as Trump's personal lawyer. So there's pretty much nothing that this ruling does to hamper this case.
That said, I have no doubts that they'd find some way to rule in his favor if an appeal managed to land in front of them. But I think he'd have to go through normal appeals first, he can't just go straight to SCOTUS.
It’ll be interesting to see how stiffing your lawyer is an official act
You're right, but I'm confident he'll get there in the end.
Yeah. The Roberts Court has been nothing if not the Court of Post-Hoc Justification. They're great at concocting the most batshit crazy of legal theories to reach the outcome they want after shopping for the perfect cases to do so. I'm absolutely positive that if/when he gets an appeal to reach SCOTUS they'll give him exactly what he wants even if they have to tie themselves in logical pretzels or even directly contradict themselves to do it.
They ruled on a goddamn hypothetical. 6-3.
None of the conservative judges are qualified to do anything except take leaves.
They've pulled that one a lot recently, haven't they? I seem to recall one of the other recent rulings, I think it was against the EPA basically being a hypothetical about a proposed rule they hadn't even actually passed yet?
SCOTUS can't do shit for state charges. Doesn't mean they won't try.
However, His legal team will argue literally any punishment is too harsh and appeal the NY state charges, which will be granted because he was a president and has money. Then it will be delayed past the election and not matter anyway because this system is not made to resist willful destruction by those entrusted to protect it.
Edit: Turns out they can. The NY prosecution has agreed to postpone charges less than a day after the ruling. Trump's team asserts that the criminal activities occurred before he was president, but since the evidence was gathered during, he can not be prosecuted. Apparently concealing evidence unrelated to the presidency is an official act...
There's move afoot by the GOP to get any state charges against the president to be elevated to the Federal court.
Guess who can pardon himself or have federal charges dropped?
That's not how Federalism works. The President is not a member of any state government, and has no immunity from state crimes. There's no way to move this case from state court to federal.
Unless you change the laws to say you can! Which was the point of the above comment.
The Constitution can't be changed that easily. There's no reason for the State of New York to give up the case, even if it were possible to do. And there's no way to compel it, considering the issue is NY State law.
They’re already trying it on appeal, though. Sure, they’re applying federal precedent to a state case, but why would Trump’s team let stop them?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw4yp9g7ynwo
They cannot currently cancel state charges, but the GOP is trying to change that. It is one of a raft of measures underway. Some are truely frightening, such as using Red State National Guard troops against non-compliant Blue States. Check out Project 2025 - the Republicans are even trying to hide their planned dictatorship.
He was not President at the time of these acts, but I doubt that would stop them.
Did you read the article? The scope of this ruling is pretty narrow.
Not that narrow. They are saying fomenting an attack on Congress and conspiring to subvert the electoral college are official acts.
Where are you getting that? That question wasn't put to SCOTUS.
Trump was charged. Trump claimed he had "absolute immunity", and didn't have to face charges. Court rules against him in this issue; he appealed. Appellate court ruled against him, sending the case back to the trial court. He appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS said he doesn't have absolute immunity, and that the limit of his immunity is on his "official acts". SCOTUS then sent the case back to the trial court. The trial court will have to determine whether his actions were "official" or "unofficial".
From the decision:
What part of that statement is about attacking Congress or subverting the electoral college?
It is certainly within the president's and vice president's responsibilities to determine whether to certify the count. They have to be able to say "no, this should not be certified".
Saying "no" can still be used as evidence of another crime, it's just not a crime in and of itself.
Trying to convince the VP to fraudulently say no to the EC count is the crime. The president and the vice president don't get to pick the next president. The electoral college does. The only legitimate reason the VP could say no to the EC count is if for some reason the count itself were wrong, in which case the VP and Senate should correct it and move on.
That, of course, wasn't the basis for the discussion. Trump was trying to get his fake electors counted, or to at least have Pence declare that he couldn't tell which electors were real.
Knowingly making a false statement to the VP would, indeed, be a criminal fraud, but the passage you cited does not contemplate such an act.
That, too, is not contemplated in the passage you cited.
The mere act of talking to the VP about it is contemplated and by default (according to this ruling) protected. You can't tell the VP to change the electors without talking to him!
Edit: Obviously the fact that the pres. committed a crime can't be considered as a reason to deny immunity, otherwise it wouldn't be immunity.
Talking to the VP about not confirming is protected. Lying to the VP about the reason why he should not confirm is not protected.
Did you find anywhere in the decision where they make an exception for lying?
The trial court is free to determine that lying to the VP for purposes of committing election fraud does not constitute an official act. The fact that they remanded the decision to the trial court instead of reversing the trial and appellate court is the "exception" you are looking for.
They denied his appeal. Ok? He claimed absolute immunity, they said "No, you only have immunity for your official acts. We aren't going to save you here. The trial court is going to burn your ass."
"The trial court is free to determine that lying to the VP for purposes of committing election fraud does not constitute an official act."
Based on what standard? How could a trial court reach such a decision in a way that won't be overturned?
The Supremos have sent this back to the courts with the message that there's only one way to decide and no plausible way to reach another conclusion that will hold up.
BTW, my Lemmy instance isn't showing replies to your comment, including my own reply, so if it didn't come across, I'm sorry but I don't know what else to try.