The Donald Trump Score Card

Trump immune in 'improper' Jeffrey Clark scheme as SCOTUS takes hacksaw to Jan. 6 case

excerpt:

"With its ruling on Monday recognizing that former presidents have immunity against criminal prosecution for some of their acts while in office, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have taken a hacksaw to former President Donald Trump’s criminal case in Washington, D.C., where he faces allegations he conspired to subvert the 2020 election.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote Monday that presidents “cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution” and said that since the matter is on remand to the lower court before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, it is up to her to analyze whether the charges in Trump’s four-count criminal indictment fall under the umbrella of protected official or unprotected unofficial acts."

 

Trump's legal team will use the Supreme Court ruling to argue that his behavior to steal the election from Biden was an official act and is therefore immune from prosecution.

A long protracted court battle over whether his actions were official or unofficial is expected to ensue.

 

Trump immune in 'improper' Jeffrey Clark scheme as SCOTUS takes hacksaw to Jan. 6 case

excerpt:

"What is certain is that the decision will lead to a series of protracted hearings, appeals and, in all likelihood, a flurry of briefs by Trump’s lawyers who, historically, have moved to dismiss the indictment outright.

In addition to allegedly pressuring state officials by invoking bogus claims of voter fraud and conspiring to submit slates of fake electors, Trump is also accused of intimidating voters by raising a mob of his supporters who gathered at the Capitol and delayed the election certification for several terrifying hours."

 

Imagine Dennis the Menace whining and fussing over a toy that he wants, while his diaper leaks all over the carpet.

 

Steve Bannon has reported to prison.

His sentence is four months. He is expected to be released just before the November election.


Bannon Reports to Federal Prison After Conviction for Defying Congress

 

https://www.salon.com/2024/07/01/ma...al-experts-alarmed-at-stunning-scotus-ruling/

excerpt:

"The justices "gave Trump virtually everything he asked for," issuing a ruling that was "about as broad as it could be for presidential immunity" since it holds that "virtually everything a president does as president is 'presumptively' and 'official act'" that requires the prosecution to "rebut that presumption," argued Bennett Gershman, a law professor at Pace University and former New York prosecutor.

He pointed to the justices determining that courts may not "inquire into the president's motives" and the implication that proof of Trump's attempt to hold onto power through "fraudulent and corrupt actions" would not be allowed as another point of contention, calling the decision "a gift" to the former president "by delaying any trial until next year at the earliest, if at all."

"The court’s recital of the president’s authority was stunning in its breadth," Gershman told Salon. "It made me wonder whether a president could claim absolute immunity for the 'official act' of ordering a Navy Seal team to assassinate a political rival; organizing a military coup to hold onto power; accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon.""

 

The Supreme Court decision was 6-3. The six conservative justices sided with Trump. The three liberal justices dissented.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/01/trump-supreme-court-immunity-00166113

excerpt:

"Trump, on social media, posted that the high court’s ruling giving him broad immunity was a “big win” and should end all legal cases against him. Longtime adviser Stephen Miller said it was “another setback” for Democrats, while Speaker Mike Johnson said it was a win “for former President Trump and all future presidents.”

And Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, a prospective Trump running mate, called it a “massive win, not just for Trump but the rule of law.”

The decision comes just days after President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance, which is likely to further solidify Trump’s polling lead, and represents yet another break for the former president in recent days.

“I am not sure anyone recently has had a better run of luck in a presidential campaign than Donald Trump. He’s gotten major fundraising infusions, his opponent imploded in a debate and other than the upcoming sentencing he will not see the inside of a courtroom again before Election Day,” said former George W. Bush adviser Scott Jennings, referring to Trump’s scheduled July 11 sentencing in the New York hush money trial."

 

The Supreme Court bailed out Trump today.

 

If any downside exists for Trump, it's that the Supreme Court granting him immunity will make it more difficult for Trump to retaliate against Biden by prosecuting him through conventional legal channels (assuming Trump is reelected).

Then again, that can be a moot issue. Trump as president could simply have someone bump off Biden and be immune from prosecution. The prosecution would first have to prove that he isn't immune before even trying to prosecute him.

 

Will Trump ever stand trial in the Jan. 6 case after SCOTUS ruling on immunity?

excerpt:

"Therefore prosecutors may have to rework their case to fit with the ruling.

“What’s going to have to happen is the prosecution is going to have to find ways of making clear that certain things Trump did were not done in his official capacity” without pointing to his motive, Hockett told The Post."

 

Supreme Court's liberal justices warn of 'law-free zone' stemming from Trump immunity ruling

excerpt:

"Roberts went on to state the dissenting justices were overlooking the potential harms of a lack of protection for presidential actions.

"Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute," Roberts wrote.

"Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors.""

 

PRESIDENT BIDEN, MONDAY , JULY 1st, 2024: TODAY, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS GRANTED ALL PRESIDENTS IMMUNITY FOR ACTS DEEMED OFFICIAL WHILE IN OFFICE. I WELCOME THIS ACT AND AS MY 1ST OFFICIAL ACT, I AM, AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OFFICIALLY ORDERING A PERSON WHO HAS DENIGRATED THIS COUNTRY AS A FAILED STATE, A LAUGHING STOCK OF THE WORLD AND HAS LIED WELL OVER 30,00O TIMES ABOUT OUR ELECTIONS , IGNORED ORDERS TO STOP SPEAKING ABOUT THOSE WHO OPPOSE HIM, THUSLY PUTTING THEIR LIVES IN DANGER----TO BE ARRESTED AND IMMEDIATELY TRANSPORTED TO RIKERS ISLAND FOR A PERIOD NOT LESS THAN 5 YEARS. HE WILL BE ORDERED TO UNDERTAKE REMEDIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ACTION UNTIL SUCH TIME AS HE DISCONTINUES TO BE A DANGER TO THIS COUNTRY.THAT PERSON WOULD BE DONALD J. TRUMP. THIS IS AN OFFICIAL ACT BY ME AND IS NOT LIABLE FOR PROSECUTION.

IF ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That would settle their fuckin'hash .

 

Ignoring the risks of presidents being granted immunity, the supporters of the Supreme Court's ruling are content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of Trump and people like him who have nefarious intent.

 

It's conjecture by Justice Roberts.

Trump and Nixon are outliers who subjected themselves to potential criminal prosecution by their unusual malevolent behaviors. Trump was indicted. Nixon would have been indicted but was pardoned by Ford.

The U.S. system of government has generally worked well and hasn't seen a prevalence of enterprising prosecutors who are trying to frivolously prosecute a president.

Trump and Nixon showed that even without immunity they were willing to engage in criminal behavior. Immunity will further embolden them and make it more difficult to prosecute them.

 

Trump says he was simply engaging in his official duties to make sure the 2020 election was done fairly.

Nixon could have said he had immunity because he was simply performing his official duties as president when he implemented a burglary at DNC headquarters to make sure that the Democrats weren't engaging in any nefarious behavior related to the upcoming 1972 presidential election.

 

After today's Supreme Court ruling, prosecutors will have to first prove that a president wasn't operating within his official duties. They will also have to prove it without making references to motives, such as ones that involve criminal intent.

It raises the bar high for prosecutors. Someone like Trump can sneakily engage in criminal behavior under the guise of operating within his official duties. He can hide behind a cloak because prosecutors will now need to prove he wasn't acting within his official duties without bringing up issues like criminal intent.

It's a great deal for someone who works in an underhanded fashion like Trump.

 

The Supreme Court Puts Trump Above the Law

excerpt:

"Although the pro-Trump justices attempt to nest the breadth of their opinion in legalese, their finding that the president cannot be prosecuted for “official acts,” and that much of Trump’s efforts to seize power fall under that rubric, means that the justices have essentially legalized a losing president refusing to step down, as Trump tried to do after the 2020 election.

The Court’s opinion presents an absurd paradox that defeats the purpose of a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law. It has little basis in the Constitution or in the words of the Founders. It is the outcome that most benefits the Court’s preferred presidential candidate, while allowing the justices to live with themselves for defacing beyond recognition the Constitution and the concept of democratic self-determination.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor puts it plainly. Regarding the question of “whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor writes, “The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.” That is the long and the short of it."

 

Questions we need to be asking are where do we go from here as people and as a nation. This is going to open the door to bad things happening to citizens and non-citizens living in our country providing Trump gets elected.