No. of Recommendations: 3
This if from Joyce Vance -
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/trump-must-be-tr... ::
If Trump does not face trial, future presidents with a criminal bent would be emboldened. They could reasonably believe they could get away with anything so long as they cloaked their behavior in some semblance of official conduct. Take your attorney general into the meeting where you plan to order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, and you’ve got immunity. And you can pardon coconspirators on your last day in office.Would this hypothetical survive legal challenges? Does involving the DOJ, via the AG, automatically shield all acts from prosecution per the Supreme Court decision?
No. of Recommendations: 18
Does involving the DOJ, via the AG, automatically shield all acts from prosecution per the Supreme Court decision?
--------------
This is the point I have been making since the USSC decision on immunity.
The court claimed to couch its finding in a mantle of sanity by stating absolute immunity only applies to responsibilities of the President that require immediate decision making (e.g. Commander-in-Chief responsibilities) and that presumed immunity only applies to direct interactions between the President and members of the President's Administration. Perfectly reasonable, right? BUT... The USSC also created a rule regarding EVIDENCE that states that any COMMUNICATION between the President and his administration involving areas of responsibility granted absolute immunity were PROHIBITED from use in court, even if required to prove criminal activity in NON-PROTECTED areas.
That allows a President to poison a vast swath of evidence that could otherwise prove criminality in non-protected areas of action by simply performing them in context with "protected" areas of action or in the presence of at least one Cabinet official. I have zero doubt the court would follow this ruling up by further ruling that if evidence about actions with IMMUNITY protections cannot be USED to prove convictions for NON-IMMUNE actions, then there's no point in even allowing the collection of that evidence in the first place, right? From that conclusion, the court has virtually destroyed the ability of Congress and the Judiciary to obtain evidence that could be used to support an impeachment and removal even if it cannot be used in a criminal or civil court.
That is extremely dangerous. As I just posted...
The most disconcerting takeaway from this revised indictment and motion regarding actions and evidence related to "official actions" is that the worst lesson has probably already been learned by future corrupt leaders. The next time you want to go criming, ensure you've appointed enough criminals IN YOUR CABINET to accomplish your goals and use them for the wet work. Sure, the Supreme Court has maintained immunity does not attach to non-existent powers or illegal acts but the Supreme Court has also essentially established a default "taint" for any evidence of immunized conduct, preventing its use in proving crimes NOT protected by immunity. If the only evidence of a crime exists in Administration controlled channels, a President can simply claim communications related to those crimes are related to "core official acts" and prevent their use in court or even discovery. This can drastically limit the availability of evidence to use in prosecuting a corrupt President for acts unprotected by immunity.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 2
since all underestimate trump's depravity, consider the edge case.
as an official act, simply 'eliminate' disagreeable scotus members. (or all of them...why take a risk?)
no further need for judiciary nor election systems.
think of all the time and $ saved, which can further cut taxes. or provide a trump tithe.
