47: The Swamp

[JSRG]

They said for official business he is immune from the law.

Dealings with foreign countries, giving our pardons, even killing people can be deemed official business.

This is a considerably different claim that you originally made. You declared "The president is immune from the law so says SCOTUS." You give no qualification whatsoever for this, and indeed went so far as to claim that "he can do whatever he pleases." Now you shrink back and say "for official business he is immune from the law" which is a rather different claim. It is like saying "smoking is illegal in the United States" and when challenged simply switching the claim to "smoking is illegal in the United States for those below the age of 21."

But even this more moderate claim of it only being "official business" overstates the reality. Trump v. United States is a confusing opinion that possibly raises more questions than it answers, hence why people end up with so many different interpretations of it, but the absolute immunity only extends to "core constitutional powers". Official acts that are not from the Constitution instead get the more mild, albeit more confusing, "at least presumptive immunity" label. Nevertheless, still not absolute immunity.

Your new list of things the President can do is dialed back considerably from your previous claims, now only saying "dealings with foreign countries, giving our [sic] pardons, even killing people can be deemed official business." In other words, implicitly acknowledging the Supreme Court didn't say the President is immune for these things (certainly it never said anything about killing anyone). To be fair, it is true someone could "deem" it as such, given the confusing and vague nature of the opinion, but even if all of those are true, it still falls short of your prior claims.

I don't want to defend the opinion. It's badly reasoned. It's confusing as to what it is even deciding (perhaps it avoided making more specific conclusions because it was otherwise impossible to keep a majority together?). And its entire approach is wrongheaded to begin with (Barrett's concurring opinion, while mostly agreeing with the conclusions of the majority, disagreed with the approach and said that it shouldn't be framed as an immunity issue at all and just a question of how Congress can regulate the exercise of executive power, made much more sense). But even a broad reading of it does not go as far as the claims you were previously making, which you dialed back on in your response.

One final thing should be noted. Everything in the Supreme Court decision really only matters after a President leaves office. Because even if the Supreme Court were to say "there's no immunity, civil or criminal, at all", the President would still be effectively immune from criminal prosecution while in office because of various things that make prosecution a practical impossibility, such as the fact they can fire anyone in the Department of Justice who tries to bring any charge against them.

It's not a good opinion, but let's not exaggerate it and claim it says things it doesn't.

 

[stevil]

It's not a good opinion, but let's not exaggerate it and claim it says things it doesn't.

I stick by everything I said in my first post and my second post.

 

[JSRG]

I stick by everything I said in my first post and my second post.

Even after they've been proven to be wrong? Okay.

 

[stevil]

Even after they've been proven to be wrong? Okay.

Unless someone is writing a thesis, a 200 page document, proof read, providing citations etc,
Like when someone is writing a quick post of an online chat forum, you need to engage your brain a little, put things into context and try to work out what they mean rather than get nit picky and try to think they are writing something to be all encompasing.

Clearly what I wrote was respect to a certain context.

 

[SimplyMe]

SCOTUS never said any of that.

It's frustrating, because while I think Trump v. United States (the immunity decision) was incorrect, I still have to defend it because people keep exaggerating what it actually said.

Even after they've been proven to be wrong? Okay.

I'm going to agree more with stevil. Now, I will agree that he stated wrongly when he said, "The president is immune from the law so says SCOTUS." It should have been stated that, "The president is immune from the law for acts taken in his role as President, per SCOTUS." I can understand you trying to argue that isn't what SCOTUS was saying but the fact is, even with other courts, that is how it has been interpreted; and Trump's defense lawyers were pushing that idea hard in trying to defend Pres. Trump.

Even worse, to get "clarity" on what the Supreme Court meant would require a prosecutor actually attempting to charge Trump criminally for an official act -- with the issue of having to spend all the money to prosecute it to the Supreme Court with the risk that the immunity would be upheld by the Supreme Court. Because of this, and doubly true with Trump's age (the difficulty of taking the case to trial, with appeals, and having it complete before Trump has passed away), it is doubtful we'll see any challenges to this ruling in our lifetimes.

As for the other comments, those largely appear to be true:
"He can extort people, companies, countries at his pleasure. He can order people be killed or locked up at his pleasure."

The things that are being talked about, such as trying to remove security clearances from law firms that the President doesn't like and any clients who hired that law firm, removing clearances is acting in the role of the Presidency -- so taking a "bribe" to not remove those clearances would appear to be an area where the President has immunity.

"He can sell pardons for millions of dollars, he can accept bribes, he can do whatever he pleases.
"He can pardon anyone that participates as a co-conspirator with him."

Again, pardons are a power of the Presidency so selling pardons would appear to be be immune from prosecution as pardons are an official act.

Further, it is worth pointing out that any action Pres. Trump takes, the defense will always first be that it was an official act as President and, as such, immune. We've seen this already with Trump's "fake elector" scheme, where he claimed they were "Presidential actions" and, as such, he was immune from prosecution (though trying to claim them as "official actions" is questionable, at best). Whether the Supreme Court meant to make the President immune for prosecution, after he leaves office (as under current policies, he already is immune while President), that has been the effective result -- and requires prosecutors to "prove" that actions were not "official acts," to prevent the case from being dismissed, before they can even attempt to start the prosecution.

 

[stevil]

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/25/business/musk-faa-starlink-contract/index.html

The Federal Aviation Administration has agreed to use SpaceX’s Starlink internet system to upgrade the information technology networks it uses to manage US airspace, raising new concerns about conflicts of interest for CEO Elon Musk in one of his other roles, that of recommending funding cuts at federal agencies, including the FAA.

The contract comes while Musk is leading efforts to make deep cuts in federal government spending, including staffing cuts at the FAA, and some critics are raising questions about conflicts of interest over his role overseeing government agencies that are supposed to be regulating his businesses.

Musk, a key supporter of President Donald Trump during the last election, is heading the Department of Government Efficiency, making moves to cut federal staff in the name of eliminating waste and fraud.

 

[stevil]

Further, it is worth pointing out that any action Pres. Trump takes, the defense will always first be that it was an official act as President and, as such, immune.

What this has done, it has shifted the responsibility of upholding the dignity of the office of the Presidency and the reputation of USA on the world stage to the voters.

The voters need to ensure they vote responsibly, especially if they know beforehand the character and track record of the presidential candidate they are voting for. Do they want a corrupt executive branch or an ethical one? The law, the judicial branch, the Congressional branch will not moderate a corrupt and unethical and most likely self serving president.

For Trump it was easy beforehand to know he was going to behave this way, for other presidents it may not be so obvious, when people get true unchecked power only then do they tend to show their true character, and by then it is too late. Because the President is King for his term.

 

[JSRG]

I'm going to agree more with stevil. Now, I will agree that he stated wrongly when he said, "The president is immune from the law so says SCOTUS." It should have been stated that, "The president is immune from the law for acts taken in his role as President, per SCOTUS." I can understand you trying to argue that isn't what SCOTUS was saying but the fact is, even with other courts, that is how it has been interpreted; and Trump's defense lawyers were pushing that idea hard in trying to defend Pres. Trump.

Then you agree with me. stevil made claims like "The president is immune from the law so says SCOUTUS" and "he can do whatever he pleases." When I pointed out these claims were false and he was exaggerating the decision, he replied by declaring "I stick by everything I said in my first post and my second post." (emphasis added) In other words, he was still insisting he was right--even though, as you acknowledge, he was wrong.

He appears to have somewhat walked it back in a post after my post you were responding to--but, the post was still declaration of sticking by everything in the previous posts, despite them being, as you admit, wrong.

 

[stevil]

Then you agree with me. stevil made claims like "The president is immune from the law so says SCOUTUS" and "he can do whatever he pleases." When I pointed out these claims were false and he was exaggerating the decision, he replied by declaring "I stick by everything I said in my first post and my second post." (emphasis added) In other words, he was still insisting he was right--even though, as you acknowledge, he was wrong.

I wasn't writing an all encompassing thesis, I was talking in context. Sure Trump cannot go onto the street and rob someone or rape someone.

But he can order his military to kill his political rivals, he can extort legal companies into paying him millions of dollars or millions of dollars worth of services, he can sell pardons for personal gain, he can extort foreign allies withholding promised aide or weaponry in their defence against an invading common adversary. He can order his AG to proclaim widespread voter fraud even if there isn't any evidence of it, he can fire people for not doing illegal or unethical things for him, all in the guise of official presidential duties.

 

[JSRG]

I wasn't writing an all encompassing thesis, I was talking in context. Sure Trump cannot go onto the street and rob someone or rape someone.

Then why didn't you just acknowledge you spoke imperfectly? Why instead did you double down and declare that you stood by everything (your exact word, "everything") in your posts?

If you had just said "okay, I used overly broad language, but I think my general point was accurate" I would've probably dropped it right then.

But he can order his military to kill his political rivals,

This is of course one of the most popular examples to bring up. It should be noted that the opinion never says that, though it must be also be admitted it is certainly a quite plausible interpretation of it (the dissent brought it up, and the majority opinion never gave an explicit denial).

That said, let's face it: As was pointed out in this article, practically speaking if a President has gone so far as to order the military to kill political rivals, we are well past the point where it even particularly matters if the President can technically be tried for it.

he can extort legal companies into paying him millions of dollars or millions of dollars worth of services, he can sell pardons for personal gain, he can extort foreign allies withholding promised aide or weaponry in their defence against an invading common adversary. He can order his AG to proclaim widespread voter fraud even if there isn't any evidence of it, he can fire people for not doing illegal or unethical things for him, all in the guise of official presidential duties.

Again, the opinion doesn't declare these things--though they are, again, rather plausible interpretations of it.

At any rate, I'm not here to defend an opinion I thought was bad. I'm just here to try to stop absurd exaggerations of it.

 

[stevil]

Then why didn't you just acknowledge you spoke imperfectly? Why instead did you double down and declare that you stood by everything (your exact word, "everything") in your posts?

Take a look at post 20 in this thread, my instant response to your criticism.

 

[JSRG]

Take a look at post 20 in this thread, my instant response to your criticism.

I'm looking at it. What am I missing? You didn't say you were sticking by everything in that post, but everything in that post and the previous one that I was replying to.

 

[stevil]

I'm looking at it. What am I missing? You didn't say you were sticking by everything in that post, but everything in that post and the previous one that I was replying to.

Huh? Here is post 20

They said for official business he is immune from the law.

Dealings with foreign countries, giving our pardons, even killing people can be deemed official business.

My first post was to be taken in context, my second post was adding some clarification, because you were thinking I was saying Trump could do anything regardless of context.

 

[JSRG]

Huh? Here is post 20

My first post was to be taken in context, my second post was adding some clarification, because you were thinking I was saying Trump could do anything regardless of context.

Post 20 did make it look like you were pulling back from your more extreme claims, to more moderate claims (which I think still overstated things, albeit not nearly as much). I discussed that in post 21. However, you then in post 22, instead of responding to anything I said, instead just gave a post not addressing anything I said and instead apparently doubling down on the original claim by saying you stick by everything in the prior two posts.

If this was just poor phrasing on your part, though, we can probably leave the issue there.

 

[stevil]

Post 20 did make it look like you were pulling back from your more extreme claims, to more moderate claims (which I think still overstated things, albeit not nearly as much). I discussed that in post 21. However, you then in post 22, instead of responding to anything I said, instead just gave a post not addressing anything I said and instead apparently doubling down on the original claim by saying you stick by everything in the prior two posts.

If this was just poor phrasing on your part, though, we can probably leave the issue there.

I wouldn't say it was poor phrasing. In casual talk, people talk with respect to context. I actually thought the context was very clear and that no one would get confused, but you for some reason thought i was saying that Trump is immune to all laws. So I clarified. I didn't think you would then go on and on about it further after I had already clarified, but there you go.

 

[Pommer]

My pre-“immunity-decision” understanding was that the office of the President (and therefore the incumbent president) sits in a bubble outside of the Law (necessarily so), so that they can effect those changes that they wish to make that would allow their policies to become “legitimate“.

A President can write an Executive Order that is abhorrent to the Constitution, and the Courts will (likely) enjoin it…but no penalty can be attached to the President/Author; part of the Chief Executives job is to check the power of the Courts and the Congress.

Without immunity a POTUS is a mere figurehead.

 

[stevil]

Without immunity a POTUS is a mere figurehead.

But with immunity, a corrupt and unethical POTUS can steal elections, extort foreign countries, extort local lawyer practices, lockup or kill political opponents etc. So USA folk need to be very careful about who they elect into office.

 

[Pommer]

But with immunity, a corrupt and unethical POTUS can steal elections, extort foreign countries, extort local lawyer practices, lockup or kill political opponents etc. So USA folk need to be very careful about who they elect into office.

They’ll have “wide-latitude”, yes, but most Presidents are honorable men (so far) and this hasn’t happened.

 

[stevil]

They’ll have “wide-latitude”, yes, but most Presidents are honorable men (so far) and this hasn’t happened.

Many of these things have happened during the 45th and 47th terms.

 

[essentialsaltes]

He can sell pardons for millions of dollars,

Lawyers Are Quoting $1 Million in Fees to Get Pardons to Trump​

[Note this is not a price list from Trump, but what the lawyers are taking to grease the wheels appropriately using connections and campaign donations]

The president “is effectively and responsibly using his constitutional authority,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields said. “Over the past four years, we have witnessed the weaponization of the justice system against the president’s allies. The president is committed to righting those wrongs and ending lawfare.”

Powerful people in business and finance are rushing pitches and stepping up lobbying, catering their appeals to Trump and hiring lawyers with connections to the administration. These defendants with means are spending big for a chance to clear their names, at least in official records if not in public perception. Interviews with about two dozen lawyers and pardon hopefuls, many of whom asked not to be identified discussing plans that weren’t public, have pulled back the curtain on the clemency process under Trump. Some outlined plans to spend at least tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys, lobbyists and consultants, while others say the costs will reach well north of $1 million to put cases together and get them in front of the White House.

Traditionally, clemency applications passing through the Justice Department’s pardon office can take years, involving extensive vetting by the FBI. Milton, the former electric-truck executive, however succeeded at landing a full and unconditional pardon in about two months.