SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity
-
Except - not? Robert’s expressed concern about the inadmissability of evidence of an official act. His example was selling ambassadorships, not pardons, but each a bucket 1 act.
Obviously he got over it. I’ll report findings but it might take a day or two.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
The auction and the pardon are separable acts, with the sale being a private one, and not immune from prosecution. That's what I immediately thought upon hearing the example on Advisory Opinions, and when I read the oral arguments, it is what Roberts thinks. That example was discussed in orals.
I was referring to this. Can you support this? So far I only see evidence against from Roberts in oral arguments but again I just got started.
I misattributed what I saw in the ruling footnote as something I saw in orals. Either makes my point just the same, but I apologize for the mistake.
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
I misattributed what I saw in the ruling footnote as something I saw in orals. Either makes my point just the same, but I apologize for the mistake.So, for the record, you read the orals?
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Except - not? Robert’s expressed concern about the inadmissability of evidence of an official act. His example was selling ambassadorships, not pardons, but each a bucket 1 act.
Obviously he got over it. I’ll report findings but it might take a day or two.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Except - not? Robert’s expressed concern about the inadmissability of evidence of an official act. His example was selling ambassadorships, not pardons, but each a bucket 1 act.
Obviously he got over it. I’ll report findings but it might take a day or two.
I guess you won’t even concede that the act of taking the bribe would not be immune, in Roberts’ reconning. Because that would entirely defeat your claim that the ruling makes official act sales immune.
-
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
I misattributed what I saw in the ruling footnote as something I saw in orals. Either makes my point just the same, but I apologize for the mistake.So, for the record, you read the orals?
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
I misattributed what I saw in the ruling footnote as something I saw in orals. Either makes my point just the same, but I apologize for the mistake.So, for the record, you read the orals?
Jon, part of a good faith discussion is trust. So you can go ahead and decide for yourself. Make it your own truth. Did I pretend to read the orals by accidentally saying I saw something there? Or did I actually read them? Maybe I didn’t, and wanted to score all those credibility points by implying I did. Maybe I got all the points I’ve made in this thread from twitter, or podcasts. It’s an eternal mysterie.
-
In orals he pushed back against Trumps attorney on that very fact since the granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible.
You read them, right?
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
In orals he pushed back against Trumps attorney on that very fact since the granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible.
You read them, right?
Right. So you won’t concede the central point that the bribe would not be immune from prosecution, as a direct inference of Robert’s talking about such a prosecution in the ruling. You’d rather fixate on what I have or haven’t read. Because that’s more important than the fact that you’re blatantly wrong.
Education is extremely important.
-
You could always just answer the question.
I will.
I read the ruling. I read summaries of the concurrences and the dissents.
I read reporting on the orals back in April. Just started reading the text of them tonight.
-
You could always just answer the question.
I will.
I read the ruling. I read summaries of the concurrences and the dissents.
I read reporting on the orals back in April. Just started reading the text of them tonight.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
You could always just answer the question.
I will.
I read the ruling. I read summaries of the concurrences and the dissents.
I read reporting on the orals back in April. Just started reading the text of them tonight.
And yet you’re still blatantly wrong about whether a bribe is an official act.
You could always just concede that, rather than engaging in who has read what pissing contest. Maybe I didn’t read them at all Jon. I thought I saw something there as only a rhetorical trick to convince you that I read them.
-
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
In orals he pushed back against Trumps attorney on that very fact since the granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible.
You read them, right?
Right. So you won’t concede the central point that the bribe would not be immune from prosecution, as a direct inference of Robert’s talking about such a prosecution in the ruling. You’d rather fixate on what I have or haven’t read. Because that’s more important than the fact that you’re blatantly wrong.
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
In orals he pushed back against Trumps attorney on that very fact since the granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible.
You read them, right?
Right. So you won’t concede the central point that the bribe would not be immune from prosecution, as a direct inference of Robert’s talking about such a prosecution in the ruling. You’d rather fixate on what I have or haven’t read. Because that’s more important than the fact that you’re blatantly wrong.
I’m still discovering what Roberts thinks of this. He expressed concern that you couldn’t effectively prosecute the bribe if the granting of the ambassadorship was inadmissible. That is precisely David French’s concern about the pardon.
Maybe Robert’s resolves the question in print. But you don’t fucking know that.
-
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
In orals he pushed back against Trumps attorney on that very fact since the granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible.
You read them, right?
Right. So you won’t concede the central point that the bribe would not be immune from prosecution, as a direct inference of Robert’s talking about such a prosecution in the ruling. You’d rather fixate on what I have or haven’t read. Because that’s more important than the fact that you’re blatantly wrong.
I’m still discovering what Roberts thinks of this. He expressed concern that you couldn’t effectively prosecute the bribe if the granting of the ambassadorship was inadmissible. That is precisely David French’s concern about the pardon.
Maybe Robert’s resolves the question in print. But you don’t fucking know that.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
In orals he pushed back against Trumps attorney on that very fact since the granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible.
You read them, right?
Right. So you won’t concede the central point that the bribe would not be immune from prosecution, as a direct inference of Robert’s talking about such a prosecution in the ruling. You’d rather fixate on what I have or haven’t read. Because that’s more important than the fact that you’re blatantly wrong.
I’m still discovering what Roberts thinks of this. He expressed concern that you couldn’t effectively prosecute the bribe if the granting of the ambassadorship was inadmissible. That is precisely David French’s concern about the pardon.
Maybe Robert’s resolves the question in print. But you don’t fucking know that.
You should probably reread the ruling rather than searching through the history of evolving thought. The ruling is the final say. The oral arguments, which according to your truth I either did or did not read, are for the purpose of forming and changing thoughts and conclusions.
-
Not for a second did I think you read the oral argument transcript. But I didn’t think you were lying outright - I actually did believe you read reporting on it.
Anyway, Robert’s expressed my very concern in orals. Yet he made peace with it. It’s a shame. They could have created two buckets - official acts and non-official, had presumptive immunity for the first but subject to contextual information, and allowed official acts to be at least considered as evidence for unofficial criminal acts, and all the ugly hypotheticals would have gone away. And you’d still have protection for official acts.
-
Not for a second did I think you read the oral argument transcript. But I didn’t think you were lying outright - I actually did believe you read reporting on it.
Anyway, Robert’s expressed my very concern in orals. Yet he made peace with it. It’s a shame. They could have created two buckets - official acts and non-official, had presumptive immunity for the first but subject to contextual information, and allowed official acts to be at least considered as evidence for unofficial criminal acts, and all the ugly hypotheticals would have gone away. And you’d still have protection for official acts.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Not for a second did I think you read the oral argument transcript. But I didn’t think you were lying outright - I actually did believe you read reporting on it.
The oral arguments are linked to right there on the SCOTUS website, and they're an easy read. What a strange flex that you read them and nobody else did. I guess you take what you can get, while you're desperately avoiding admitting to being wrong about your core claim - that bribes for official acts will be immune from prosecution. It's really interesting how you've turned this discussion into a dunk for your side, when you're blatantly wrong about your core claim.
I figured that out just by thinking, and the reading I did - which apparently did not include the oral arguments, because that is your truth - only satisfied me that I was on the right track from the beginning.
Anyway, Robert’s expressed my very concern in orals. Yet he made peace with it. It’s a shame. They could have created two buckets - official acts and non-official, had presumptive immunity for the first but subject to contextual information, and allowed official acts to be at least considered as evidence for unofficial criminal acts, and all the ugly hypotheticals would have gone away. And you’d still have protection for official acts.
The ugly hypotheticals are beyond hypothetical, they are fantastical, and at least one of them, the one you mention, is explicitly prosecutable by a careful reading of the ruling.
-
-
You are wrong and Robert’s shared my concern in April. Thank you for lying to me about orals else I never would have read them! Is that a flex? It happens to be true.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
You are wrong and Robert’s shared my concern in April. Thank you for lying to me about orals else I never would have read them! Is that a flex?
Jesus jon. The ruling makes it clear that bribes are prosecutable, and you will never admit you were wrong about that. I made no claim that the orals don't contain some preliminary ruminations about anything.
-
The prosecution isn’t forbidden, but how do you win it if you can’t even mention the ambassadorship or pardon given? Roberts and I are both curious how that would work in practice. He was in April, at least.
-
The prosecution isn’t forbidden, but how do you win it if you can’t even mention the ambassadorship or pardon given? Roberts and I are both curious how that would work in practice. He was in April, at least.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
The prosecution isn’t forbidden, but how do you win it if you can’t even mention the ambassadorship or pardon given? Roberts and I are both curious how that would work in practice.
He wrote in a footnote of the ruling, an example of how it could work in practice. I posted it in this thread. Whether you read it or not, well, I guess that's up to your own truth.
Every bit of evidence the prosecutor has of the bribe transaction and conversation, is admissible. The public record of the official act itself, would be admissible.
-
Not true. Yes you could enter into the record that the man got the ambassadorship, but any conversation about the actual granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible. When the chief of staff says ‘but he’s totally unqualified’ and the president says ‘he gave me a million reasons why he’d be good at the job’ you couldn’t use any of that.
It’s the sole reason Barrett wrote a concurrence rather than join the majority opinion.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
I mentioned before this ruling handicaps prosecutions of presidents the same way the court’s interpretation of the speech and debate clause handicaps the prosecution of senators and I gave the example of Menendez.
Toward the bottom of this piece, under the heading ‘Key Text Messages for Prosecutors’, it outlines really damning evidence against Menendez that prosecutors can’t use. This is now the case for the executive branch too.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/22/menendez-corruption-trial-prosecutors-00159557
-
It’s a pity that there aren’t other remedies, such as impeachment or having voters remove him from office…
Does impeachment and removal from office strip the office of immunity over the actions that got them impeached?
The Brad
-
Not true. Yes you could enter into the record that the man got the ambassadorship, but any conversation about the actual granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible. When the chief of staff says ‘but he’s totally unqualified’ and the president says ‘he gave me a million reasons why he’d be good at the job’ you couldn’t use any of that.
It’s the sole reason Barrett wrote a concurrence rather than join the majority opinion.
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Not true. Yes you could enter into the record that the man got the ambassadorship, but any conversation about the actual granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible. When the chief of staff says ‘but he’s totally unqualified’ and the president says ‘he gave me a million reasons why he’d be good at the job’ you couldn’t use any of that.
It’s the sole reason Barrett wrote a concurrence rather than join the majority opinion.
So we've gone from "bribery is totally immune" to "bribery is practically unprosecutable even if it isn't totally immune", to "a minority of the justices are still worried about this, even though the author of the majority opinion specifically addressed it". And you've made this trek without ever being wrong once, that is impressive.
What you have, is an opinion, and you're welcome to it. Please feel as histrionic about it as you'd like to. But do try to keep in mind Roberts' footnote in the ruling. It speaks very directly to your concern. I mean, if you actually want to alleviate your concern. Some people enjoy their concerns, especially if it validates a certain political tribalism.
the prosecutor may admit evidence
of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed
to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of
the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2).Education is extremely important.
