Harish A.’s Post

#Explained #SCOTUS Dissent on Absolute Immunity for former US President Donald Trump from criminal prosecution For the first time in US history, a former President, in this case Donald Trump, had been indicted by a federal grand jury for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following November 2020 Presidential Elections. The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud. #Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): #In a monumental decision where for the first time in American history, the SCOTUS had to consider a former US President’s (Donald Trump) immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his Presidency; the Full Bench of the Court with a ratio of 6: 3 held that, under US constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to Absolute Immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. #And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts....

𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲! #Donald #Trump 𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚 𝘾𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩 𝙍𝙪𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣 𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙄𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮: 𝙄𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙢𝙥 Absolute Immunity for Official Acts The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that American presidents have "absolute immunity" for their official actions, addressing several charges against former President Donald Trump. The decision emphasizes the protection afforded to presidential acts within their constitutional authority. 𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙢𝙥'𝙨 𝙄𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝘼𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 Federal prosecutors have charged Trump with four criminal offenses related to the 2020 presidential election. They allege that he "conspired" to overturn the election results by spreading "knowingly false claims" of fraud to obstruct the collection, counting, and certification of votes. 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙂𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙄𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 "In our constitutional system of separated powers, the nature of presidential authority grants a former president absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his definitive and exclusive constitutional powers," the court stated in a 6-3 decision. "He is entitled to at least presumptive immunity for all official actions. There is no immunity for unofficial acts." 𝘿𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙊𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙫𝙨. 𝙐𝙣𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝘼𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 The ruling allows lower courts to hold evidentiary hearings to determine which of Trump's actions might have been unofficial, such as when he contacted state and local election officials regarding the 2020 votes. The court cautioned that motives behind presidential actions should not be scrutinized when distinguishing between official and unofficial conduct. 𝘽𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙄𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 "The president is not above the law. However, under our system of separated powers, the president cannot be prosecuted for executing his core constitutional authorities, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity for his official acts," the ruling stated. 𝙄𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙣 𝙎𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝘾𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙡'𝙨 𝙋𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙨 The Supreme Court saved the immunity case for the last day of its term. This long-anticipated decision deals a blow to special counsel Jack Smith's plans to prosecute Trump in federal court in Washington before the November elections. #US #Supremecourt #Washington #federalcourt #court #President #immunity #trump #maga #constitution #justice

New direct evidence unsealed! Intent to unlawfully prevent the peaceful transfer of power. When you get the time, please read at least a few pages, if not the entire extraordinary document. Please share with anyone considering voting for Trump/Vance. READ THE 165 PAGE REDACTED DOCUMENT THAT WILL CHANGE HISTORY Excerpt of the document: Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 252 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 165 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF OF AMERICA v. v. : + * * * * * * * * CRIMINAL NO. 23.1257 (1SC) CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC) allegations against the defendant are immunized. The answer to that question is no. This motion DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant. : * GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR IMMUNITY DETERMINATIONS The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overtum the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so. Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted... #ruleoflaw #sedition #trump #education #vance #GOP

Clarity from the SCOTUS is good news. This means the 3 remaining grand jury trials with 54 felony counts including RICO can proceed. Also, we’re only 10 days away from our former president’s sentencing in his 34 felony convictions. Justice has been slow, but it’s going to be sweet! “The Supreme Court on Monday raised the bar for prosecuting Donald Trump, ruling that he has immunity for some of his conduct as president in his federal election interference case, but maybe not for other actions, adding another obstacle for special counsel Jack Smith taking the case to trial. In a novel and potentially consequential case on the limits of presidential power, the justices voted 6-3 along ideological lines to reject Trump’s broad claim of immunity, meaning the charges relating to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results will not be dismissed, but said some actions closely related to his core duties as president are off-limits to prosecutors. "The president is not above the law," Roberts wrote. "But Congress may not criminalize the president's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution.” #nooneisabovethelaw #justice #accountabilty #stoptheinsanity #voteoutMAGARepublicans #ethics #commonsense #leadership #integrity

Finally, we are hearing about how Authoritarian Leaders look upon democracy and free-speech. Apparently, the Trump campaign and the Republican Party feel that lies, disinformation, fraud, slander, libel, false-claims, & false-advertising are all protected free-speech. PLEASE NOTE: Donald J. Trump is not defending/proving his 'Stop-the-Steal' lies. He is arguing that he has the right to lie to me, to you, to your Children/Grandchildren, and to his fellow Americans about Election Fraud & Stop-the-Steal, and that he cannot be held accountable for lying to us. I wonder how January 06 Insurgents who are doing jail time feel, knowing that Trump has mislead them about 2020 Election Fraud and Stop-the-Steal, while letting them take-the-fall in jail because they believed Donald J. Trump's lies??? — We have laws which PROHIBIT fraud, slander, libel, false-claims, and false-advertising too. Con-Men usually end up in jail. ... Ask Fox News Channel about their $787 MILLION settlement with Dominion, when Dominion challenged FNC reports of 2020 Presidential Election Fraud ... Bernie Madoff died in prison after lying to investors & defrauding them out of $18 Billion. ... The leaders of the Genesis II Church are behind bars because they sold 'Miracle Mineral Solution' (containing Bleach) to their congregation, lying to them as they claimed efficacy in treating COVID-19, Alzheimers, Autism, AIDS/HIV, etc. -- Then again, there is always God's Commandment: Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness ** SO, what's it going to be? Are Con-Men free to lie, to mislead, to injure our fellow Citizens, & to harm our great Nation? Who needs rule-of-law, when you have caveat emptor?

Supreme Court grants former presidents partial immunity from prosecution, delaying Trump's Jan 6 trial. This landmark ruling could reshape presidential accountability and impact the 2024 election. Experts warn it might provide a "road map" for future presidents to evade consequences for potential crimes in office. The decision raises crucial questions about the balance of power in government and the principle that no one is above the law. What are your thoughts on this controversial ruling? Read more at TANTV!  https://lnkd.in/ek_6u8p6  #SupremeCourt #PresidentialImmunity #Election2024 #politics #tantvstudios

Supreme Court Upholds Presidential Immunity The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of sweeping immunity for former presidents regarding their official acts while in office. This decision has significant implications for the legal landscape and the boundaries of presidential power. Key Points: - Immunity for Official Acts: Presidents cannot be prosecuted for exercising core constitutional powers and enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts. - Case Dismissals: Parts of the prosecution's case against Trump, including alleged misuse of the Justice Department and efforts to submit false electors, were dismissed. - Limited Immunity: Immunity does not cover unofficial acts; presidents are not above the law for personal actions. Chief Justice Roberts' Remarks: - Constitutional Duties: "The President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty." - Presumptive Immunity: Trump is "presumptively immune" from prosecution for actions like pressuring Vice President Pence during election certification. Broader Impact: - Public Opinion: The ruling may affect perceptions of Trump’s criminality and the Supreme Court's role in protecting presidential powers. - Future Prosecutions: New conditions and hurdles for federal prosecutors could delay trials before Election Day. Celebrating Constitutional Integrity: Trump hailed the decision as a "big win for our Constitution and democracy." This ruling emphasizes protecting presidential authority while ensuring accountability for unofficial acts. #SupremeCourt #PresidentialImmunity #Constitution #LegalRuling #DonaldTrump #Justice #Democracy

If the legal profession can disbar their fellow lawyers when they clearly do illegal things, why can’t politicians also prevent their lawbreakers from continuing to work in their professions?! This same standard should definitely apply to Trump (and many other politicians although none quite as egregious in their illegal activities as our former president). It is even spelled out in the 14th amendment to our constitution, if only SCOTUS would use common sense in interpreting the law. “Rudy Giuliani, who once served as New York City’s mayor and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, has been disbarred “effective immediately” for his efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday. A panel of judges in New York’s Appellate Division, First Department wrote that Giuliani “flagrantly misused” his position as an attorney for former President Trump and his campaign to make “intentionally” false statements to courts, lawmakers and the public. “In so doing, respondent not only deliberately violated some of the most fundamental tenets of the legal profession, but he also actively contributed to the national strife that has followed the 2020 Presidential election, for which he is entirely unrepentant,” it says.” #nooneisabovethelaw #justice #accountabilty #stoptheinsanity #voteoutMAGARepublicans #ethics #commonsense #leadership #integrity

The U.S. Supreme Court found that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for any actions that were within his constitutional powers as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity is nothing short of a UN-American reshaping of the Presidency. A principle fundamental to our Constitution is challenged as no man is above the law. The majority's move effectively shields Presidents from criminal liability, sparking concerns echoed by legal experts nationwide. Under scrutiny the majorities arguments use brute force not logical reasoning or historical precedent. Dissecting the majority's reasoning reveals flaws, as highlighted by Justice Jackson's dissent, exposing the illogical nature of the immunity ruling. By carving out a law-free zone around the President, the Court disrupts the established order dating back to the Founding, setting a extremely dangerous precedent: “The official-versus-unofficial act distinction seems both arbitrary and irrational, for it suggests that the unofficial criminal acts of a President are the only ones worthy of prosecution. Quite to the contrary, it is when the President commits crimes using his unparalleled official powers that the risks of abuse and autocracy will be most dire.” The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding.” The unabated partisanship of the majority, coupled with a Chief Justice seemingly aligned with an agenda aiming to dismantle government, poses a significant risk to democracy, the rule of law, and our way of life. This underscores the urgency for the American people to unite, safeguard what remains, and forge a path towards a safer future for generations to come. The choice lies in our hands. #PresidentialImmunity #SupremeCourtRuling #Democracy #RuleOfLaw #AmericanPeople

CHUTKAN UNSEALS JACK SMITH’S 165-PAGE “IMMUNITY MOTION” IN JANUARY 6 CASE "Judge Tanya Chutkan has unsealed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 165-page 'immunity motion' arguing that Trump is subjected to presidential immunity following the Supreme Court’s ruling. It appears Chutkan unsealed the 165-page document to do the maximum damage to Trump before the election." Two points that not only the judge but Trump's detractors constantly overlook: 1) Trump's challenging of election results - no matter what the venue - is political free speech in its redress of government. This is protected by the First Amendment, which applies to all citizens. Even his lawsuits are protected because he is afforded the opportunity for those allegations/claims to be adjudicated. Mere words without physical coercion or illegal attempts at blackmail are just that word. Further, if simply stating that an election was stolen constitutes election interference, then there are a litany of Democrats - including Hillary Clinton who should be under indictment. 2) Jack Smith does not have standing to bring this indictment because he was illegally seated in his role. The Senate must ratify special prosecutors. Smith did not go through that approval process and, therefore, has no standing to bring the indictment. This case must be dismissed constitutionally (as if that matters to Judge Chutkan). https://lnkd.in/geHa_AAv #Trump #JackSmith #Chutkan #Election2024 #Politics #DoJ #UndergroundUSA