Trump immunity scotus oral argument this Thursday.

[gachase21]

10:00an

This an excellent spaces discussion from last night with multiple 20+ years each former federal prosecutors - that have also worked private after- and made scotus and appeals court arguments.

https://x.com/mcadoogordon/status/17...169706853?s=46



Cliffs- they think it will be 6-3 or 7-2 that a president has limited immunity, and that it will get pushed back to district court for fact finding to determine if Trumps actions were in the scope of office or not (which the district court never did).

After that, it could potentially make it back to SCOTUS again (or not depending on how they word ruling).


I will update links with live audio as we get closer.




Live audio link

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

[Procta]

will be interesting

[KINGFABIAN]

BRB let’s argue that the POTUS should have complete immunity even to kill his opponents. If they agree he does however and then grant immunity for the current POTUS Biden to kill his opponents is when they will realize “wait wait that’s not what we meant, only the prior POTUS!!!”

[Procta]

BRB let’s argue that the POTUS should have complete immunity even to kill his opponents. If they agree he does however and then grant immunity for the current POTUS Biden to kill his opponents is when they will realize “wait wait that’s not what we meant, only the prior POTUS!!!”

that sounds unhinged bro

[KINGFABIAN]

that sounds unhinged bro

But nowhere near as unhinged as Orange Master and his late night all caps rage tweets. You like unhinged so I will take it as a compliment. Gracias.

[ymer]

BRB let’s argue that the POTUS should have complete immunity even to kill his opponents. If they agree he does however and then grant immunity for the current POTUS Biden to kill his opponents is when they will realize “wait wait that’s not what we meant, only the prior POTUS!!!”

Lay off the soylent man.

[GuineaDago585]

This is the last hurdle. As long as they push it back to the lower courts, Trump will not be on trial this fall. New York’s bullchit case will be the only one and his chances of winning in November will be solidified. Hopefully SCOTUS makes the right decision.

[bezarker]

[ColdandChilly]

This is the last hurdle. As long as they push it back to the lower courts, Trump will not be on trial this fall. New York’s bullchit case will be the only one and his chances of winning in November will be solidified. Hopefully SCOTUS makes the right decision.

But he's going to lose in New York lol

[DeshaunWatson]

BRB let’s argue that the POTUS should have complete immunity even to kill his opponents. If they agree he does however and then grant immunity for the current POTUS Biden to kill his opponents is when they will realize “wait wait that’s not what we meant, only the prior POTUS!!!”

Liberal with low Testosterone
Psycho
















Pick one.

[DanteEdmond]

I'll be listening to this one

[Retoaded]

10:00an

This an excellent spaces discussion from last night with multiple 20+ years each former federal prosecutors - that have also worked private after- and made scotus and appeals court arguments.

https://x.com/mcadoogordon/status/17...169706853?s=46



Cliffs- they think it will be 6-3 or 7-2 that a president has limited immunity, and that it will get pushed back to district court for fact finding to determine if Trumps actions were in the scope of office or not (which the district court never did).

After that, it could potentially make it back to SCOTUS again (or not depending on how they word ruling).


I will update links with live audio as we get closer.

That set of circumstances makes sense and will likely play out I bet. The question is will scotus give guidance in their ruling as to what those limitations are or will they completely throw it back in district court's lap to take the first stab at defining that.

[gachase21]

But he's going to lose in New York lol

That won't have any significant consequence though - might not even get probation

[z4v4]

lets just talk facts... trump is a shinning light in an interminable dross of world leadership. u can decide for urself what impact that should have on a court ruling but that outcome wont change the facts

[DuracellBunny]

That set of circumstances makes sense and will likely play out I bet. The question is will scotus give guidance in their ruling as to what those limitations are or will they completely throw it back in district court's lap to take the first stab at defining that.

IMO they will try to define as little as possible. This is being done after the fact and would apply to every other past president, as well as Trump.

You could end up with multiple past presidents able to be prosecuted for various acts in office. The whole thing is a minefield.

As I stated last time we discussed this, POTUS, as commander in chief, has to have some level of immunity. The question is whether it is partial or blanket immunity.

Even though blanket immunity is ridiculous, POTUS has been treated as having de facto blanket immunity to avoid opening pandora's box.

The moment SCOTUS specifies what POTUS has immunity for, they are stating that they don't have immunity for everything else. At that point, people from both sides of the aisle will pour over past presidential actions with a magnifying glass, looking for things that Obama, Bush, Biden etc can be prosecuted/sued for.

[Babayagawick85]

BRB let’s argue that the POTUS should have complete immunity even to kill his opponents. If they agree he does however and then grant immunity for the current POTUS Biden to kill his opponents is when they will realize “wait wait that’s not what we meant, only the prior POTUS!!!”

Lmao TDS is serious here

[BunkerBoy]

That won't have any significant consequence though - might not even get probation

You dont think a felony conviction is of significant consequence?
Are you aware that they are way more Democrats than Republicans in this country?
Trump cant win with just his base. He needs independents.
Do you think Independents will vote for a Felon?

[lasher]

BRB let’s argue that the POTUS should have complete immunity even to kill his opponents. If they agree he does however and then grant immunity for the current POTUS Biden to kill his opponents is when they will realize “wait wait that’s not what we meant, only the prior POTUS!!!”

Totally rational and not at all insane take.

[Seatard]

Even though blanket immunity is ridiculous, POTUS has been treated as having de facto blanket immunity to avoid opening pandora's box.

The moment SCOTUS specifies what POTUS has immunity for, they are stating that they don't have immunity for everything else. At that point, people from both sides of the aisle will pour over past presidential actions with a magnifying glass, looking for things that Obama, Bush, Biden etc can be prosecuted/sued for.

Opening the box is what a lot of people claim to want, so hopefully the limitation is immunity from damages that might be caused by direct, documented presidential actions, i.e. signing bills and executive orders. Other than that, POTUS should be bound by all laws and open to prosecution for breaking them, IMO.

I don't see it really mattering much either way. Some administrations will just get better at gaming the system and being less transparent. At the end of the day voters will always have the option to make poor choices, no SCOTUS ruling will protect us from ourselves.

[Deathstroke]

Trump isn’t going to kill anyone the Democratic Party has people this brainwashed? Open your eyes. Agreeing with Hilary in 2024 lmfao!

[rampagefc77]

You dont think a felony conviction is of significant consequence?
Are you aware that they are way more Democrats than Republicans in this country?
Trump cant win with just his base. He needs independents.
Do you think Independents will vote for a Felon?

Depends on what the "felony" is. Is it a hush money payment that was already passed over by the FEC and prior SDNY DA? An allegation that it was a campaign finance violation in which no campaign finances were used and the payments cannot be directly tied to a campaign benefit (could be to protect his business, shield his family, etc.).

No chance that hurts anything. It is a ridiculous case. Hell, clinton used campaign finances and hid them through her law firm Perkins Coie to pay foreign nationals for fake dirt on her politicial opponent, leaked those allegations to the media ahead of the trial and pumped them into the FBI to launch an investigation into him... and crickets.

[DuracellBunny]

Opening the box is what a lot of people claim to want, so hopefully the limitation is immunity from damages that might be caused by direct, documented presidential actions, i.e. signing bills and executive orders. Other than that, POTUS should be bound by all laws and open to prosecution for breaking them, IMO.

I don't see it really mattering much either way. Some administrations will just get better at gaming the system and being less transparent. At the end of the day voters will always have the option to make poor choices, no SCOTUS ruling will protect us from ourselves.

I think that is what impeachment should have been for, and may well have been intended for. If I was one of the founding fathers, I would have designed it that way.

If a POTUS is impeached for X (supposedly high crimes and misdemeanours, not some BS), the successful impeachment strips them of their immunity for X (not for other things) and allows them to be prosecuted.

Specifying a list of when they are and are not immune is problematic, as that can and, by necessity will, change over time. Applying that retroactively, as they are now looking at doing, is even more problematic.

Giving a shield of immunity and having impeachment as a mechanism for piercing that shield, seems like it would have made sense to the people who drew it up.

[NYPat]

lets just talk facts... trump is a shinning light in an interminable dross of world leadership. u can decide for urself what impact that should have on a court ruling but that outcome wont change the facts

You're speaking the divine truth brother.

[EctoCanuck]

Isn't it funny how only Republican Presidents need 'immunity'...




Maybe you shouldn't support criminals.

People with morals wouldn't support someone like Trump.

People with morals wouldn't support......errr.....nvrmnd...

[bezarker]

[Phil9]

BRB let’s argue that the POTUS should have complete immunity even to kill his opponents. If they agree he does however and then grant immunity for the current POTUS Biden to kill his opponents is when they will realize “wait wait that’s not what we meant, only the prior POTUS!!!”

President Biden ordering Trumpy’s immediate painful execution and then claiming immunity based on a conservative SCOTUS ruling would be based as phuck. Maybe he can clean up SCOTUS while dat “unlimited immunity” is available.

[Deathstroke]

Fingers crossed he can claim immunity .

[DuracellBunny]

On a side note: Obama ordered the extrajudicial killing of US citizens by drone strike. September 2011, Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed in Yemen, with Awlaki's 16 year old son, also a US citizen, killed by drone two weeks later.

This wasn't an "oh, my bad", these were deliberate executions of US citizens without due process etc.

If we are going to remove immunity and prosecute people, we could start right there.

[gachase21]

Live audio link in op

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

[EctoCanuck]

I wish I had found that first.