undefined | Better HN

0 pointsleereeves1y ago0 comments

The citation is the Supreme Court ruling itself, which I had assumed people participating in this discussion were familiar with. It grants "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution [only] for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority".

That is a narrow standard. The only acts in this case which met that standard were discussions with Justice Department officials.

Everything else in this case was in fact remanded, and it remains within the power of the lower courts to deny Trump immunity on all other aspects of the case.

0 comments

ModernMech1y ago

Thank you for the citation (citations are not limited to documents, but often and especially in a large document of hundreds of pages, direct one to specific passages, as you did did here).

Your citation is exactly the bit that makes the President immune for directing Seal Team 6 to execute a political rival -- directing the military is within the President's "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority". According to the Supreme Court, such a direction is now "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution".

TeeMassive1y ago

Again, removing elected officials by any other process other than the what the Constitution provides for is not within the Presidents' power.

This is clearly an unlawful act that all military members are obligated not to obey.

seizethegdgap1y ago

But the President can declare a person an enemy combstant, or have them arrested in the name of national security, and their private records are now inadmissible.

> Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30-32.

1 more reply

ttyprintk1y ago

Trump's influencers work around that in a different way: by singling out individuals for military tribunals[1], he is not using the pardon power to deprive them of due process, or excuse someone else from doing so. The military tribunal deprives them of due process. But trying a civilian in a military tribunal is only constitutional if a civilian court is unavailable, which happens out of convenience in places like Guantanemo Bay.

[1] nytimes, https://archive.ph/fz52u

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsleereeves1y ago0 comments

That is a narrow standard. The only acts in this case which met that standard were discussions with Justice Department officials.

Everything else in this case was in fact remanded, and it remains within the power of the lower courts to deny Trump immunity on all other aspects of the case.

0 comments

ModernMech1y ago

Thank you for the citation (citations are not limited to documents, but often and especially in a large document of hundreds of pages, direct one to specific passages, as you did did here).

TeeMassive1y ago

Again, removing elected officials by any other process other than the what the Constitution provides for is not within the Presidents' power.

This is clearly an unlawful act that all military members are obligated not to obey.

seizethegdgap1y ago

But the President can declare a person an enemy combstant, or have them arrested in the name of national security, and their private records are now inadmissible.

> Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30-32.

1 more reply

ttyprintk1y ago

[1] nytimes, https://archive.ph/fz52u

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse