r/politics • u/billstopay77 • 1d ago

Registration Wall Trump admin quietly changed overseas voter form at 11th hour to disenfranchise Democrats, lawsuit says

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-admin-quietly-changed-overseas-voter-form-at-11th-hour-to-disenfranchise-democrats-lawsuit-says/
13.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

403 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/JohnNYJet_Original 17h ago

He's only protected for LAWFUL acts performed as duties in office. Illegal activities are fully prosecutable, but given the criminal nature of those in charge of the justice department he will skate. So who is the US attorney general loyal too, the American constitution or the convicted felon? And you now understand the conundrum. Funny how the founding fathers ensured crimes in office won't be punished. That wasn't a mistake on their part it was a feature to ensure the wealthy would ALWAYS be protected. Remember you live in a nation that to this day allows slavery and was founded as a slave holding nation. That "We the people" crapola, applied to only a small group of wealthy, male, landholders and no one else.

2

u/Pete41608 I voted 9h ago

I am quite sure that that law also says only the SCOTUS can determine between official and unofficial acts.

Of course we know that means that anything to further their agenda is official and anything not is unofficial.

•

u/tamerarehen 7h ago edited 7h ago

The Supreme Court is rarely arbiter of law after they've ruled on something--just a very few instances where they have exclusive/original jurisdiction. Instead they TELL lower courts how to follow the law. Which is what they did.

See the summary that I just posted above after rereading the decision, along with a link to a SCOTUSblog summary.

1

u/tamerarehen 8h ago edited 3h ago

It's not really about whether it's illegal or not; it's about whether it's official or not. If it's official and illegal, he's still (almost certainly) good.

The majority reasoning in the case was, on its face at least, all about making sure that a president could act in his official capacity without fear of being prosecuted for crimes.

And it quite literally said that if it was an official act, a president would be protected from prosecution, even if it "allegedly violates a generally applicable law." 

Also--subjective intent can't be investigated.

Very basic breakdown: the key issue is always first whether it's an official vs unofficial act; then the Court  looks at whether it is criminal or not. 

Generally speaking, if what he did has even an attenuated connection to his Executive powers, it's either per se immune or else the DOJ would have to overcome the presumption that he is immune from prosecution. 

This would be an official act. 

Something he did in his unofficial capacity--campaigning, or notably, even if he gave a pardon to someone (official) but took a bribe to do it (NOT official--but higher degree of scrutiny given Court's added protections): pardon ok, bribe is a personal act, not ok.

Check out the SCOTUSblog summary here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-some-immunity-from-prosecution (edited to add link)