And Don’t Sleep On The Pardon Power

Yes, and the President would have core executive authority to remove anyone he wants from the military until he gets the person who would execute the order. And that exercise of authority, per Roberts, is subject to absolute immunity. https://t.co/W4YH4FqBC3

— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) July 1, 2024

POTUS could pardon the person who carried out the order and argue he wasn’t making an illegal order, because now the President can’t make an illegal order..

If you can’t present evidence of intent, or even of the conversations leading to the act, you can’t prosecute the crime. And under “innocent until proven guilty,” no successful prosecution, no crime. Even if the pardon was illegal, I think you’d have to prove that to overturn it. And you can’t.

He would not be able to remove a single person from the military and he would never be able to get any military member to follow that obviously unlawful order.

Military officers, unlike you, have a lot of education on this topic.

— Jason Nichols (@TheJasonNichols) July 1, 2024

Actually, POTUS could under this ruling. And the examples of Michael Flynn and Oliver North don’t say much for absolute military fidelity to the rule of law. Not to mention the leakers of military secrets by soldiers more loyal to their ideology than the law.  POTUS could find somebody to do it, easily. Several DIJ lawyers threatened to quit over the electoral challenges fraud; but Jeffrey Clarke stepped up. Lawyers have A LOT of education on this topic.

The Supreme Court just threw out a lot of it.

You can’t be simple-minded about this.

These hyperbolic hypotheticals are just so wearisome & unproductive...

— Ric Fouad (@ricfouad) July 1, 2024

These are precisely the hypotheticals an appellate court is expected to consider. The dissent points that out, and Roberts just waves them away. Roberts’ opinion is neither wearisome nor unproductive, however. It is merely destructive.

As I said earlier today, House/Senate Dems should put into writing a constitutional amendment to overrule the decision and more narrowly define the immunity issue given even the majority opinion concedes the Constitution contains no explicit provision on this.

No, it's not going… https://t.co/2vVREc9inS

— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) July 1, 2024

Campaign theme. Just sayin’…again and again and again.

As I noted earlier, SCOTUS just made itself irrelevant if a president declines to respect it https://t.co/5tnikZUEVy

— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) July 1, 2024

Damned hypotheticals!

Women can be criminally prosecuted for getting an abortion but the most powerful person in the United States can commit crimes freely in office with complete immunity as long as they understand which levers of power and methods to use to commit the crimes.

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) July 1, 2024

Another campaign slogan/theme.

If this language of this decision was applied to the actions of the German Chancellor in 1942, the Final Solution at the Wannsee Conference, which culminated in the Holocaust, would be considered an “official act” conferring immunity from criminal prosecution on the executive.

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) July 1, 2024

Under German law at the time Hitler had absolute authority. It’s worth noting the Crown of England has sovereign immunity (I’m not sure what would happen if the sovereign committed a serious crime), but at the same time virtually no authority.

I'd like to thank the Supreme Court for granting Joe Biden godlike official powers.

I think his first step should be to declare all Trump golf courses as protected Federal wildlife preserves and seize them by eminent domain...it's an official act, so it's cool, right?

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) July 1, 2024

Works for me; if only to give Trump more reasons to spend more money on lawyers.

Last time I checked, stealing classified documents is not part of the President's official ambit.

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) July 1, 2024

The nutshell case for why the documents case survives even as the D.C. case appears doomed (or at least attenuated). Besides, the crime was not the taking (per se). It’s actually the refusal to return (i.e., why Biden wasn’t charged for the contents of his garage). Which happened long after Trump was POTUS, and so no longer capable of official acts.

It’s possible some of the 34 felony counts fall, on the question of evidence related to official acts. But I don’t think, on reflection, all 34 of them will. Conceivably there could be a new trial, to keep such evidence out; but remember, citizen Trump will have to pay for that trial himself. Maybe with a Go Fund Me campaign. 🤔

The Georgia case will have to review its evidence. Trump may seek a dismissal, but, again, the State has more money than he does.