America is in Danger, Christo-Fascist #scotus Rule Trump has some immunity.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the court's majority decision in Trump v. U.S., writing that the opinion permanently changes the nature of the American presidency.
"Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency," It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for 'bold and unhesitating action' by the President, ante, the Fascist-Republican Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more."
"Because our #Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent," Sotomayor added.
Sotomayor: “The indictment paints a stark portrait of a President desperate to stay in power.”
Sotomayor dissents “with fear for our democracy."
❗️Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president.
The first decision point is whether the alleged criminal conduct involves one of the President’s 'core' powers, If so (and apparently regardless of the degree to which the conduct implicates that core power), the President is absolutely immune from criminal liability for engaging in that criminal conduct. If not, then one must proceed to consider whether the conduct qualifies as an 'official' act or 'unofficial' act of that President.
If the crime is an official act, the President is presumptively immune from criminal prosecution and punishment, But even then, immunity still hinges on whether there is any legal or factual basis for concluding that the presumption of immunity has been rebutted. Alternatively, if the charged conduct is an unofficial act a determination that, incidentally, courts must make without considering the President’s motivations, the President is not immune.
Roberts goes FULLY CORRUPT anything the lower court determines to be an "official act" canNOT be used as evidence in a criminal trial — meaning it's entirely off limits to prosecutors EVEN if it would corroborate evidence deemed unofficial.
"Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution," Roberts wrote. "And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. TESTIMONY or private records of the pres. or his advisers probing such conduct may NOT be admitted as evidence at trial."
A Judicial Coup.
3/
Amy Coney Barrett "A President facing prosecution may challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment,” she said, noting that the court rejected Trump's broader immunity claims. “If that challenge fails, however, he must stand trial."
She agreed with the dissent's opinion that immune conduct should still be allowed to be used as evidence in his trial.
"I appreciate the concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury," but, "the Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent, accused the conservative justices who wrote the majority opinion in Trump v. U.S. of breaking "new and dangerous ground," departing from what she characterized as a tradition of "individual accountability."
4/
"With that understanding of how our system of accountability for criminal acts ordinarily functions, it becomes much easier to see that the majority’s ruling in this case breaks new and dangerous ground," Jackson wrote.
"Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: a Presidential accountability model that creates immunity — an exemption from criminal law— applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government," she added.
She goes on later in the dissent to say, "even a hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics, or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup, has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new Presidential accountability model."
5/
