Follow the logic, though. Prior to browbeating the various state officials, Trump had zero basis to believe that any state’s elections were improper. Here’s the syllogism:
Trump is advised multiple times by his own advisors that the election was fair and he lost.
Trump or his surrogates berate various state officials to find votes for him, don’t certify, “re-do,” etc.
Trump had no authority to monkey around with a properly run state election.
Point number one may not be considered, therefore we cannot establish the mens rea that makes the act unofficial—i.e., he said they were improper election results, and if they were, there is a legitimate interest for the Feds to intervene. Point number three is rendered toothless.
Any motive he had, no matter how much evidence supports a corrupt intent, may be considered.
It’s an official act and Americans who don’t like it can just fuck off.
Why is that at all relevant? OK, so he’s not criminally liable for his communications with his staff. But there are plenty of things that aren’t themselves illegal, that can nonetheless be relevant evidence for other acts that are. So why can’t that be the case here?
And therefore, any act taken with the intent of removing integrity from elections cannot possibly be an official act.
That would be a poor prosecution strategy, to be sure. But, likewise, if there’s video of your client murdering the victim, I’m not sure that you really need to cry or wring your hands towards the sky because the fingerprint evidence was ruled inadmissible. Just, you know, use the video that shows the defendant murdering the other guy.
More evidence is always better. That’s certainly true. Losing the stuff in the DOJ is worse than retaining it.
I don’t, personally, see it as making a large difference.
Trump cannot, at any point, claim to have had any information that implied the election was unfair. He can’t say, “Well, my people told me it was crooked.” He’d have to break immunity to make that case. All the can do is swear up and down that he was doing it for the sake of election integrity and, while the court is required to accept that as a viable defense, Trump still needs to make that case - which he can’t do while preserving immunity since, of course, breaking immunity would go the opposite way on him.
So he can offer the defense and the judge has to give him the right to make that claim. But he still needs to convince a jury and, for that, he has nothing.
Whereas, even excluding the DOJ, the prosecution still has a butt load of people saying that there was nothing and more than several dozens of court cases that show that Trump knew better. Mens rea isn’t all that difficult.
He needn’t make any case at all. The Feds have a legitimate interest to intervene when state elections are rigged. He said that’s what he was doing. It’s an official act and he has presumptive immunity.
Biden should (but won’t) take full advantage of this decision come October/November. I am so tired of unilaterally disarming in the face of a literal existential crisis.
It just occurred to me that my last post was probably OT. My apologies to the mods for that. I lost track of which thread I was in. This decision is pretty much touching on every single Trump related topic though so hopefully not too far OT.
The president is now immune from prosecution for any criminal act conducted in his capacity as chief executive. Period.
Ensuring election integrity is within his purview. Who’s to say that asking for them to find votes wasn’t based on a sincere belief that there were legitimate votes to be found? We’re no longer permitted to consider his motivations. You’re applying common sense to what is now a very narrow legal rubric.
I’m saying that’s their reasoning, and I wouldn’t rule out a do-over if some absurd outcome materializes. “Yeah, clearly we didn’t mean that.” Well, that’s what they said.
Anybody want to try to summarize what all the legalese actually means, and how it will affect the various cases?
I mean, it says that the President is immune for acts done as part of his official duties, and not immune for acts done outside of his official duties. I think most of us knew that already.
Does this decision mean the cases can go ahead, or that they can’t go ahead, or what?
Emphasis added. Until 10:30 this morning, none of us knew this. 250 years of rulings and legal understanding contradicts this. Nixon would have skated if Roberts had been CJ. No one argued this before this case.
I disagree. No other President had committed the kind of crime he would need immunity for. And Nixon did skate- he resigned instead of being impeached and Ford pardoned him. No criminal charges were ever brought. And they could have- Ford’s pardon only covered Federal crimes.
Well, you’re wrong. This has been a bedrock principle, that no man (including the prez) is above the law, since the Federalist papers. It’s not a new concept. Why do you suppose Ford issued a pardon? Why was there outrage over it, rather than a shoulder shrug since it was apparently irrelevant?
From what I am hearing from msnbc, the whole kit and kaboodle goes back to judge Chutkan.
Of the 5 things that are in the indictment,
1 is off the table, the bit with the department of justice;
2 is trump is presumptively immune from pressuring pence, Chutkan could find otherwise;
the other 3, false claims of voter fraud, fake elector scheme, and actions on Jan 6 are all on the table to be determined if they are outside the scope.
Most reckon that the hearings could start by September. This means that even though the trial is not going to happen this hearing could put a lot of things into the public realm before the election.
