SCOTAL Itch

[LarsMac]

They seem to have worked out the division between doing what is actually a part of the work of the office of POTUS vs. personal actions carried out by the individual outside the bailiwick of POTUS.

That gives hope. The acts of the person must be separated from Acts of the Office.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

They seem to have worked out the division between doing what is actually a part of the work of the office of POTUS vs. personal actions carried out by the individual outside the bailiwick of POTUS.

That gives hope. The acts of the person must be separated from Acts of the Office.

No, fuck this. This is supposed to be a nation of laws, and the President is not above the law. The President is, by Constitution and law, already allowed to do things that a non-office holder would be prosecuted for.

If the President wants to officially act in a manner that might violate the law, then they should have the laws changed, or be willing to face prosecution.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

No, fuck this. This is supposed to be a nation of laws, and the President is not above the law. The President is, by Constitution and law, already allowed to do things that a non-office holder would be prosecuted for.

If the President wants to officially act in a manner that might violate the law, then they should have the laws changed, or be willing to face prosecution.

Absolutely agree. But we have to base this thing on the constitution.

The office of the President is immune from prosecution. A person holding that office cannot be tried for any crimes.
BUT,... the Senate can impeach the person holding that office, and, upon finding that he has committed a violation of the office, can remove him/her from office. Once removed from office, that person is subject to prosecution.

Now, since Mr T has already vacated the office, his claim of immunity should be ignored. However, now that this is before the Supreme Court, that court has to decide whether his claims of immunity are valid or not.

The fact that they have been exploring the difference between his official actions as POTUS and his actions outside the duties of POTUS is a good sign.


I believe that the only conclusion they can reach is that his actions were, indeed, outside his bailiwick as POTUS and he was acting purely to look out for his own pursuits, and he is not covered under the presumption of immunity of the office.
Once that is established, he can be prosecuted for his actions on Jan 6.

Meaning that we can, indeed, take him out and hang him - Figuratively speaking, of course.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

I believe that the only honest conclusion they can reach is that his actions were, indeed, outside his bailiwick as POTUS and he was acting purely to look out for his own pursuits, and he is not covered under the presumption of immunity of the office.

But this fucking court, this fucking court ... I'm afraid that Matlock will be right (as usual, but sadly in this case) that we're going to see 5 separate opinions giving the fucker what he wants, each more contorted and full of bafflingly obvious bullshit than the last. ETA: One glimmer of hope is that they'll give him immunity for Jan 6, but not for his private sector malfeasance. But even that is probably grasping at straws.

Meaning that we can, indeed, take him out and hang him - Figuratively speaking, of course.

I would accept any of the current Federal methods of execution for treason. But I agree, it's just not to be.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

One glimmer of hope is that they'll give him immunity for Jan 6, but not for his private sector malfeasance. But even that is probably grasping at straws.

I'd be surprised to see him get immunity for everything in that 1/6 indictment, but equally surprised if he doesn't get some of those counts dismissed. PAB's already got what he wanted in any event. By failing to allow the prosecution to leapfrog the court of appeals, SCOTUS already assured the case won't be tried before November, which gives PAB the issue to run on without the potential consequences.

[LarsMac]

Well I plan to keep a firm grip on that last straw for as long as I can, and hope that reason finally prevails.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Absolutely agree. But we have to base this thing on the constitution.

The office of the President is immune from prosecution. A person holding that office cannot be tried for any crimes.
BUT,... the Senate can impeach the person holding that office, and, upon finding that he has committed a violation of the office, can remove him/her from office. Once removed from office, that person is subject to prosecution.

Now, since Mr T has already vacated the office, his claim of immunity should be ignored. However, now that this is before the Supreme Court, that court has to decide whether his claims of immunity are valid or not.

The fact that they have been exploring the difference between his official actions as POTUS and his actions outside the duties of POTUS is a good sign.


I believe that the only conclusion they can reach is that his actions were, indeed, outside his bailiwick as POTUS and he was acting purely to look out for his own pursuits, and he is not covered under the presumption of immunity of the office.
Once that is established, he can be prosecuted for his actions on Jan 6.

Meaning that we can, indeed, take him out and hang him - Figuratively speaking, of course.

I do not believe that the sitting President is immune from prosecution, and I dare you to find anything like that in Article 2.

I just stumbled upon this from Elie Mystal. It says what I meant better than I wrote it:

That’s not how it’s meant to be. The president of the United States has a lot of power that you and I don’t have, but that does not extend (and never has extended) to the power to commit crimes without being subject to the law. I think people get confused by this because the president can lawfully order his military to, say, murder thousands of people in a far-flung country. But there are rules, laws, statutes, and both national and international standards governing the president’s ability to go on a killing spree. The very ability to start a war is technically (and only technically in the modern setting) an act of Congress, not the president. It is simply not the case that the president can unlawfully murder people, just like it’s not the case that the cops can unlawfully murder people based on the color of their skin. That the cops do sometimes unlawfully murder people doesn’t mean that they can’t or shouldn’t be held accountable later, and the same must be true of presidents. The president has the power to murder, but not illegally, and that’s pretty much the difference between living in a nation of laws and living under the whims of a despot.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I do not believe that the sitting President is immune from prosecution, and I dare you to find anything like that in Article 2.

I just stumbled upon this from Elie Mystal. It says what I meant better than I wrote it:

I don't think that I said the president is immune from prosecution. The Office of POTUS is independent of the person holding the position. The person can be prosecuted for a crime, while holding the office, though there are difficulties in doing so.
read: https://constitution.congress.gov/br...ALDE_00013392/ Note: This, by the way, is the likely source of Trumps claims of immunity.

The constitution says that he can be removed from office:
Art II, Sec 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The immunity thing has grown from that, rather than being explicitly stated.
The founders never imagined that anyone would achieve the office without a sense of duty and proper national loyalty.

The Office must be held separate from such prosecutions, as they hamper his abilities to carry out the duties of the office.
And, all of that is irrelevant, since the man is no longer in the office.

The Court's discussion was a lot about whether POTUS can be prosecuted for actions while carrying out the duties of the office, to which none of his action of January 6, or the days leading up to it, belonged.

It seems obvious, I believe, that the man was acting on his own interests, rather that the interests of the Office on that day, and he has no immunity from Prosecution for those actions, especially since he no longer holds the office in question.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

The Office must be held separate from such prosecutions, as they hamper his abilities to carry out the duties of the office.
And, all of that is irrelevant, since the man is no longer in the office.

I'll read the article in a bit, but I fundamentally disagree with this. A President should operate within the law, and should face prosecution if they choose to not operate within the law. Presidents have a massive amount of power to legally act in ways that non-office holders do not.

I'll admit certain legal traditions that have arisen, but honestly, I'm all in on hampering the vast powers of the modern American President.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'll read the article in a bit, but I fundamentally disagree with this. A President should operate within the law, and should face prosecution if they choose to not operate within the law. Presidents have a massive amount of power to legally act in ways that non-office holders do not.

I'll admit certain legal traditions that have arisen, but honestly, I'm all in on hampering the vast powers of the modern American President.

I can't disagree with that.

Were it within my Bailiwick, He would have been taken to jail shortly after the inauguration Ceremony concluded.

[Ari]

There's always the third option, the president isn't immune but the more severe the charges the longer he has to prepare with charges of selling secrets not to be conducted for some 50 to 60 years after the fact due to just how secret the information the president sold was.

[specious_reasons]

This thread, or "Republicans Suck":

The NYT reported that Justice Alito has a "Stop the Steal" symbol displayed in his home around the time of the inauguration:

After the 2020 presidential election, as some Trump supporters falsely claimed that President Joe Biden had stolen the office, many of them displayed a startling symbol outside their homes, on their cars and in online posts: an upside-down American flag.

One of the homes flying an inverted flag during that time was the residence of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in Alexandria, Virginia, according to photographs and interviews with neighbors.

The upside-down flag was aloft on Jan. 17, 2021, the images showed.

Like the courageous human he is, he threw Mrs. Alito under the bus:

“I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Alito said in an emailed statement to the Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”

[Stephen Maturin]

Bitches be crazy amirite

I see some Faux News clown is questioning the report's timing in an attempt to suggest to their smooth-brained viewers that the Times story might affect ol' Sam's vote in the immunity case.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Bitches be crazy amirite

I see some Faux News clown is questioning the report's timing in an attempt to suggest to their smooth-brained viewers that the Times story might affect ol' Sam's vote in the immunity case.

I like their implication that something might affect his vote