SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity
-
@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Your post from oral arguments contains no quotes from Chief Justice Roberts. I started to scan the orals transcript and so far what I’ve seen from Roberts he shared my concern about the inadmissibility of evidence from official acts. Obviously he changed his mind along the way and I’m just starting to review this so don’t take that to the bank.
But still, if you really did see Roberts address the sale-of-core-function problem I’d like to see it. But I’ll find any reference there is.
The quote came from the ruling rather than orals. It was from a part of the ruling written by Roberts. In the quote, he imagines a scenario in which a president could be prosecuted for the bribe. Not the pardon. The bribe. That means he does not imagine full immunity from such a prosecution.
-
Criminal conspiracy occurs in a murder for hire, for instance, as soon as money changes hands in the agreement. That’s the crime. If a murder then occurs, that would be a separate crime. In this pardon for sale example, there would only be the one crime about selling the official act, with the sale being a private and prosecutable act.
-
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.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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.
-
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.
-
@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:
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.
-
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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.
-
@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.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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.
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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.
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@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.
