Tristan Snell @TristanSnell wrote: What if Biden used his official powers to have the IRS, FBI, and DOJ investigate the Supreme Court justices to find out every penny they’ve ever taken from anyone, ever?
Enforcing corruption laws is under his authority. And you can’t question his motive at all.
I wonder, I wonder,
Will he himself persecute the then former POTUS using the same excuse of immunity 
I do not think they see a contradiction. They believe use of the justice department for political advantage is correct, they were only upset that a usurper was doing it. And of course, if it is a POTUS actually doing the weaponizing, then SCOTUS can't stop them. Only someone playing by the rules and not using their power to the fullest will be constrained, which democrats do, which is why they are seen as 'weak' and 'feminine'.RTH10260 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 3:29 am
Teh Donald says that Biden is instrumentalizing the DOJ to take action against the most beloved son of the Americas, and sends prosecutors and judges to persecute him, and that he will take revenge once in office (as we all hope he will not be).
BUT... But... but... just now SCOTUS has declared he will be immune from actions in office
How will Teh Donald reconcile that with his intentions
I am sure that one of our IAALs will correct me, but just because something is non-prosecutable due to immunity doesn't make it legal, it just makes it non-prosecutable.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 8:20 pmHe can just pardon them, no?sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 8:13 pm So does this mean that his immunity powers are stronger than our laws? If he orders his DOJ to do something that is patently illegal, and they follow his orders, will they be held to the laws even though he has immunity? If they disregard his illegal order, can he then mete out some sort of punishment to them?
Orders his DOJ to shoot someone on 5th Ave.
They do it.
They get caught.
Then?????...
One of the examples in SCOTUS case was ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate someone, I think this one is A-OK.Or...
They refuse to do it...
trump gets pissed off and orders them beheaded (or fired, or whatever)....
Then???...
https://x.com/MarkHertling/status/1807909716175057003Mark Hertling @MarkHertling wrote: As a former military guy, I’m trying to figure out how a commander can refuse an illegal order from someone who is issuing it as an official act.
Philly Boondoggle Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ @tribelaw wrote: Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 69 that former presidents would be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” But what did he know? He was just a bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a forgotten spot in the Caribbean. . .Susan Holden Martin, MBA, J.D. ✨🇺🇸🇮🇱🇨🇦🇺🇦 @MarsTweep wrote: It’s better with full context:
“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp
PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 @patriottakes wrote: It seems like the SCOTUS immunity ruling violates the plain text of the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 3
Deterrence.Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 8:50 am
I am sure that one of our IAALs will correct me, but just because something is non-prosecutable due to immunity doesn't make it legal, it just makes it non-prosecutable.
Diplomatic Immunity, for example, doesn't mean that if a diplomat gets away with (for example) running someone over while drunk, that the drunk driving wasn't a crime; it just means it wasn't a crime that could be prosecuted.
Or am *I* missing something here?
Understood, though fwiw, I was speaking more of the idea that a military officer could still be prosecuted for doing something that is illegal, but for which the order the President could not be prosceuted because while giving the order is not illegal under current SCOTUS theory, actually carrying it out would be. Or am I overthinking this?bob wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 12:59 pmDeterrence.Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 8:50 am
I am sure that one of our IAALs will correct me, but just because something is non-prosecutable due to immunity doesn't make it legal, it just makes it non-prosecutable.
Diplomatic Immunity, for example, doesn't mean that if a diplomat gets away with (for example) running someone over while drunk, that the drunk driving wasn't a crime; it just means it wasn't a crime that could be prosecuted.
Or am *I* missing something here?
If Biden were to, say, unilaterally forgive student debt, the courts could overrule that decision. But Biden (even before) wouldn't be prosecuted for it.
Now, if Biden threatened to (or actually) drone strike Sally Mae until it decided to forgive student debt, Biden could argue his drone strikes (theats or actual) were official acts. So what's to stop Biden from doing that?
This, of course, applies only Democratic presidents. Because if Biden did this, this Congress would impeach, convict, and remove him. (But he still wouldn't be successfully criminally prosecuted, at least under SCOTUS' ruling.)
There are accounts of the days leading up to January 6 that suggest the former president actually was tempered by the advice that his actions could be subject to criminal prosecution. January 6 might have unfolded differently if he had effectively barked "OFFICIAL ACT!!!" before unleashing Stephen Miller's wet dreams.
I'll defer to our military experts, but my WAG is military personnel could still be prosecuted for fulfilling an illegal order even if the president couldn't be criminally prosecuted for giving it.Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 6:56 pm Understood, though fwiw, I was speaking more of the idea that a military officer could still be prosecuted for doing something that is illegal, but for which the order the President could not be prosceuted because while giving the order is not illegal under current SCOTUS theory, actually carrying it out would be. Or am I overthinking this?
yeahbut that won't happen, tfg'll fire anyone that disobeys his orders, then pardon anyone who does and is brought up on charges.bob wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:09 pmI'll defer to our military experts, but my WAG is military personnel could still be prosecuted for fulfilling an illegal order even if the president couldn't be criminally prosecuted for giving it.Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 6:56 pm Understood, though fwiw, I was speaking more of the idea that a military officer could still be prosecuted for doing something that is illegal, but for which the order the President could not be prosceuted because while giving the order is not illegal under current SCOTUS theory, actually carrying it out would be. Or am I overthinking this?
And, in many jurisdictions, duress is not a defense to murder. So if the president not-so-hypothetically says, "Murder, or I'll have you murdered," the duress of the murder threat you received wouldn't be a recognized defense at your murder criminal trial.
