Breaking: Trump wins at Supreme Court on question of absolute immunity in Jan. 6 actions

61
1170

The U.S. Supreme Court gave former President Donald Trump a win in Trump v. United States, in which the majority ruled that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers, and could not be prosecuted for his official acts while in office. The case was remanded back to the lower court that had ruled against Trump in a matter involving whether he tried to stop the 2020 presidential election results from being certified.

The indictment brought by special counsel Jack Smith alleged that after losing the election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties.

The District Court had denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed that ruling. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts.

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive.”

The ruling may delay the Jan. 6 case against the former president, who is charged by the Department of Justice for trying to subvert the election.

The vote was 6 to 3, with the three liberal women of the court voting against Trump, who had argued he was acting in his official capacity as the controversial 2020 election results were being finalized.

Special counsel Jack Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November, 2022 to investigate whether “any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021.” Smith is also in charge of the investigation involving classified documents and other presidential records at Mar-a-Lago, as well as the possible obstruction of that investigation.

A federal judge in May officially and indefinitely delayed Smith’s classified documents case against Trump.

This story will be updated as I read through the ruling.

61 COMMENTS

  1. OK MRAK spin doctors – immunity for official acts but not for private acts. His case is far from over.

  2. The tide is turning against the Democrats who are trying to quash Biden’s opponent in the courts! Thank goodness Trump has the ability to fight these ridiculous DOT/Court attacks! Conservaties! We must help and VOTE!

  3. Dred Scott #2. An absolute abomination of a ruling. SCOTUS has ruined their legitimacy with this ridiculous decision.

    • cman, you are either a commie idiot or evil, but… what’s the difference?

      It’s not about Trump it’s about the Constitution and the separation of co-equal branches of Government. Congress has power over the executive or President by way of Impeachment, seems they tried that on T but their cases were sucky, pity that!

      Lawfare is all you leftist have, your feigned respect for the Constitution is abhorrent and frankly hilarious.
      BTW this ruling wasn’t a surprise to anyone with an ounce of understanding, perhaps you should put down the MSNLSD Crack Pipe and bone up on Civics!

  4. I’m not sure if it is a win or not. All it did was describe the kind of things he can be prosecuted for. Those things involving his job. Inciting riots, and hiding classified papers aren’t part of the job.

    • In reference to your last sentence: “Inciting riots, and hiding classified papers aren’t part of the job.”

      When they prosecute BLM and Free Palestine for inciting many riots and causing countless millions in material damage, Biden for wrongful possession of classified documents regardless of his apparent mental incapacity, and the AEA / NEA for obstructing government proceedings with students interrupting the legislature in Juneau, then they can go after Trump for his minimal involvement in J6. There’s no doubt this vast “witch hunt” is one sided and biased. Anyone pretending it isn’t looks inept.

      • If Trump had given them back in a timely matter, and kept his big mouth shut, we may not even be here now. Trump does what he wants, not necessarily what best for America.

        • When, exactly, was Trump asked to give the classified documents back?
          Was it when the folks from the National Archives, Secret Service, and the FBI looked at where he was storing them in MAL and recommended a second lock on the door? Was that when they asked for them back?

          • Actually there may be a “there, there”. I’m having a senior moment and can’t recall the specific case, but…

            Trump was required by a Grand Jury to turn everything over. It’s the why it didn’t happen which forms the crux of this particular witch hunt.

        • Has Obama given back his classified documants? Has Bill Clinton? Your candidate, Joe Biden, was only VICE president when he stole classified documents, left them lying about in his garage, and shared them with people who had no clearance whatsoever. But he’s a “well meaning elderly man with a poor memory”, so he’s off the hook. Somehow….

      • Well, the last few years a lot of people have been looking the other way saying, “My what wonderful garments Mr Biden is wearing it’s amazing, it’s so presidential.” All the while the rest of us are saying, “He’s in his underwear, this Emperor has no clothes.”
        It’s just getting harder and harder to deny it. Just like it’s going to get harder and harder to deny the two tier justice system that we’ve observed for these last years. Especially the last year.

        • Oh please. They convicted Oly North for covering for Reagan. They impeached Slick Willy but let him finish his term. They literally let Ted Kennedy get away with vehicular homicide. Give me a break.

          • Let’s see.
            Convicted a Republican.
            Let two leftists/democrats off the hook.
            .
            Well, that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt there is not a two tier justice system in this country. Thanks Greg. Finally got one right.

      • You should know better than waste your time with G Forkner. I and the wife look forward to scooping out whatever he , him writes. I does so much to legitimize the time tested saying “liberalism IS a mental illness “

    • Inciting riots? Haven’t seen any proof of that at all. I have seen Dems like Maxine Waters, though.

      And I’m still amazed they blatantly broke the law and allowed protestors at SCOTUS homes.

    • inciting a riot?
      When?
      .
      Ohhh… you mean the riot the DOJ incited on Jan 6th. Just because the headlines say Trump did it, does not make it a fact.
      And, last time I checked, addressing the public as President is an official act.

  5. It was the correct decision by 6 of the 9, which only goes to prove how some of the SC justices prefer to rule according to their political/personal beliefs and not the Constitution. And once again Justice Thomas brings up the issue of Jack Smith not being appointed legally as a SP, which I think is going to eventually get the whole thig tossed.

  6. So, let’s just consider the basis for the indictment:
    “The indictment brought by special counsel Jack Smith alleged that after losing the election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results.”
    .
    Conspired? Worst conspiracy ever. Seriously, he was open about it all.
    Knowingly spreading false claims? If something questionable happens during the counting of the ballots, an investigation is warranted. Simply claiming the election was secure, without any demonstration supporting it is no different than claiming the election was rigged. If Trump was a special counsel, he could indict Jack Smith on that front.
    Obstruct the collection, counting, and certifying of the election results? Where did President Trump obstruct anything? What a phone call? Asking questions?
    .
    And, proving intent? That is going to be a tough case to prove.
    ,
    Didn’t the left just get their collective backside handed to them because the stretched the law (a novel use of the law) to imprison Jan 6th defendants? Yet, here is Smith, using a “novel” application of the law to prosecute a former President.

  7. A concern for some is “foreign influence” of presidential electioneering. I heard and believe the source that said foreign correspondence was in the hands of the US Congress as the very moment they were supposedly officially “certifying the US Corporation election results” detrimentally to the will of the electorate. So who has the absolute official executive duty to inquire for the the voiceless people of the US, who has the duty as CIC to say: the people need a formal inquiry before certification?

  8. In truth, I’m not keen on the ruling. But this is what comes of an administration with no regard for precedent or the law. Garland and co F’d around. Now they are finding out.

  9. Was a coup taking place right then funded by foreign monarchies and their powerful foreign administrative agencies supplanting the republic form of government speedily from that of the form of government of the union of the United States Of America?

  10. What, you mean the long-shot, time-wasting, fringe immunity argument that Trump was making just to stall his court cases? That one?
    And he won 6-3? Its almost like the press has been willfully lying to us.
    I’m shocked.

  11. The Democrats (especially Pelosi and Bowser) are evil people who caused the situation that led to the J6 loss of control over Capitol security. They probably wanted it to happen, knowing that they could use it to imprison their political opponents and distract from all of the election anomalies including voting machines and the 2,000 mules who suspiciously dumped arm loads of ballots in Zuckerberg’s carefully placed swing state ballot boxes. Truth finds a way, but it’s too bad it takes so long to emerge sometimes.

    • It does take too long. There are and have been a number of court cases on the 2020 election and even prior elections. I used to be able to Google them, but now Google doesn’t let them come up in searches so easily and I really have to dig. (I should have bookmarked them, but it would have done no good as Google also demolished my user settings and had me start all over.)

  12. I wouldn’t be so quick to call this a win for Trump. The Court ruled that Presidents enjoy absolute immunity for their official acts, but it did not rule on the issue of whether the conduct in question actually fell within his official duties. While I believe the ruling on the principle of immunity was correct, it just kicks the can down the road as far as Trump’s case goes.

    • “but it did not rule on the issue of whether the conduct in question actually fell within his official duties.” As we could also say about O’biden, Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Looking forward to see what transpires in the months up to the election and afterwards. Going to be interesting times for both sides – but, more so for the dems.

  13. While this is an important win for Conservatives and the Republic, it’s shockingly interesting to read the dissenting position from … Sotomayor, Ketanji, and Barrett. The ‘shockingly interesting’ point is that these individuals, obviously questionable ethical – morally inept, are Supreme Court Justices.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.