He doesn’t have immunity for this. - ThreadSky | a Reddit-style client for Bluesky

gtconway.bsky.social • 2 days ago

He doesn’t have immunity for this.

Nothing. He’s got immunity and more importantly, impunity from his MAGA base which has performed an almost bloodless coup in the United States.

Comments

bicoastaldem.bsky.social•2 days ago

When Tapper/press act like they bear no responsibility for his rehabilitation, I rewatch this to remember it was a CHOICE to not show the 2 min of testimony of this officer.

She describes slipping in her fellow officers blood and carnage he unleashed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG-zmMmmoAs

oeishik.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yeah, he has no immunity for this. That's why he either hopes he dies in office or somehow sticks around for a third term. But the latter won't happen & the former's in the Universe's hands. Let us all hope that he'll be out of office & ready to face more indictments.

charliesurfs.bsky.social•2 days ago

Effective immunity if no one in our spineless and useless Congress will hold him accountable. Certainly the Justice Department will not.

jjurek.bsky.social•1 day ago

But who is actually going to do anything about it? Complicit Republicans? Nope. Just hoping he is, at worse, a “law unto itself.” But this remains destructive to our core.

essie333.bsky.social•2 days ago

10 D-E-A-L-S trump did make in his first 100 days to profit himself & his family, while our economy & constitution are shredded:👇
https://youtu.be/000yxkGXSVM?...

vickiecarey.bsky.social•2 days ago

Whose going to hold him accountable?

sir-grepalot.bsky.social•2 days ago

We the People.

mendyro.bsky.social•2 days ago

George, can you file a lawsuit on the behalf of the American people (or on my behalf) charging Trump with violating the Constitution? Nobody in Washington seems to give a s**t.

mililyg12.bsky.social•2 days ago

Is clear that he does.

dockellis10.bsky.social•2 days ago

Impunity really does trump immunity.

lilienfeld1.bsky.social•2 days ago

He's got immunity in the eyes of the SCOTUS for whatever the SCOTUS wants him to do. He could murder 100 people, and if the SCOTUS says he's immune, he's immune.

gacyclist.bsky.social•2 days ago

But he's got a complicit doj, controls congress and pretty much scotus as well. So he doesn't really need it.

alexcharles.bsky.social•2 days ago

Great thanks! Current DOJ / SCOTUS scares the hell out of me.

kcwilson.bsky.social•2 days ago

But he does control the investigators and the enforcers and has the pardon power. So there’s that.

zone6bgardener.bsky.social•2 days ago

But at the moment, no one has proved he has real meaningful accountability for anything.

slopcheese34.bsky.social•2 days ago

All he needs to say is that he is doing it in the interest of national security. SCOTUS will have its hands tied.

baltussen.bsky.social•2 days ago

Technically not, but seeing how all his court cases turned out before he became president again, it seems like he’s pretty untouchable.

lizespeaks.bsky.social•2 days ago

But George, if he does it from the Oval Office, it’s an official act. 👍

missshauwneeluis.bsky.social•2 days ago

He does for now.. I just hope he sees “heaven” before that though. 🫤

missshauwneeluis.bsky.social•2 days ago

Oh. Sorry I meant hell. Hell.

suffragette333.bsky.social•2 days ago

I don’t care where he goes just as long as he’s gone.

bethpink.bsky.social•2 days ago

Then why does he get away with it?? Who will hold him accountable??
His Prosecutor Barbie at DOJ?? Don't make me laugh.

He doesn't even abide by rulings from the Supreme Court.

He can and will do anything he wants, with zero consequences.

This country is OVER.

hectorolly4612.bsky.social•2 days ago

gippersgravespin.bsky.social•2 days ago

I thought I heard somewhere the Supreme Court could revisit the immunity decision if they found the need, is that correct?

lmh82.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yes. They can at any time change their ruling.

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

Kinda. SCOTUS tries to uphold precedent to avoid minimal disruptions. In general, if they overrule previous precedent, its usually based on a prior court getting a ruling wrong based on facts and evidence. I can't imagine this court just changing their immunity ruling as much as clarifying it

gippersgravespin.bsky.social•2 days ago

I was thinking if a new case arrived there that was sufficiently controversial

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

Well any case that arrives there involving Krasnov will be controversial. And because its so controversial, they may actually try avoiding hearing it.

winstonsmith2024.bsky.social•2 days ago

They can overturn a case that was decided by them, too--although typically, it takes place many years after the original ruling. Take Plessy v. Ferguson, for example, or the case overruling Roe.

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yes, that's my point. They will overturn a case that was decided by a SCOTUS with a different makeup (such as Roe). But they aren't going to reverse course on a case that they already ruled on with a similar makeup.

winstonsmith2024.bsky.social•2 days ago

Sorry, I misread your earlier post. I guess the coffee hasn't kicked in yet! ☕

ckpitt.bsky.social•2 days ago

Please do so!

pleghop.bsky.social•2 days ago

They'll never do that!

lmh82.bsky.social•2 days ago

They have recently ruled against him multiple times. The SCOTUS will not allow themselves to be an obsolete rummer stan for TFG. The corrupt members will not give up their power.

sacha.prins.net•2 days ago

Yet

pleghop.bsky.social•2 days ago

Sure he does George and if he doesn't, right now, I'm sure that congress or the supreme court, whoever needs to do it, will make sure he gets it.

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

I didn't like the SCOTUS ruling on immunity, but George is right here. Its not as widespread as people make it out to be. The ruling just made it really hard to prosecute a president for anything, so its pretty close to total immunity, but its not total immunity.

pleghop.bsky.social•2 days ago

You seem to be forgetting that there needs to be a congress or doj that WILL prosecute!

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

Congress can only impeach and remove. They have no law enforcement power. The current DOJ won't touch him, I agree. But the next administration could prosecute him.

nudaydawns.bsky.social•1 day ago

Which is why his people are looking into him running in 2028 most likely. He has so little brain left now. Imagine what it will be like in 4 years.

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•1 day ago

Yeah his mind is already mush. We could be dealing with Biden 2.0

bethpink.bsky.social•2 days ago

"next administration" as if we're actually going to have free elections ever again 😂😂

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

I have more faith that our democracy will hold for now.

rcmhere.bsky.social•2 days ago

It feels like Dems are sitting on their hands.

thereaperdigs.bsky.social•2 days ago

Because they don't care. The rich want fascism. It's the last gasp of capitalism.

notgonnadoit4u.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yessss or the dinner. His press secretary proclaimed to the world it was his “personal time”.

tobysmypup.bsky.social•2 days ago

Oh please George! He's got imunity from everything with this Supreme Court.

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

No, he doesn't. People have blown the SCOTUS immunity way out of proportion. If he wasn't elected president, he could have been prosecuted for some Jan 6 stuff, just not everything.

lmh82.bsky.social•2 days ago

He doesn't. They have ruled against him multiple times recently.

jholmes900.bsky.social•2 days ago

He doesn't have immunity for what?

bwkemper.bsky.social•2 days ago

For the operation of his private business, which is what the article is about.

psteq1993.bsky.social•2 days ago

I am looking forward to his argument that President is the sovereign

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

All true. The problem is that this president seems to mix up private business with presidential business (probably be design) to try and get the best of both worlds. For instance, with the Crypto dinner, they are claiming it was his private capacity, but the presidential seal was there.

bwkemper.bsky.social•2 days ago

Having the Presidential seal visible doesn't make the underlying actions official. It's the equivalent of someone assaulting someone while saying "this is self-defense." Such a statement/claim doesn't render the action one of self-defense.

There was no Presidential business occurring there.

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

I didn't say it made it official. I said it can be used as a defense claiming that the action was official. All of that would be litigated in the courts, if it ever came down to it.

bwkemper.bsky.social•2 days ago

And my point is that it wouldn't give him a credible defense, just as audibly claiming self-defense while assaulting someone gives one that defense. Because use of the seal doesn't turn the action into an official act.

bwkemper.bsky.social•2 days ago

Or another example, he had the Presidential seal at Mar-Lar-Go in 2021 when he wasn't the President. Does their placing of the seal there mean that any actions he took were official Presidential Acts?

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

Not quite the same. Everyone (except possibly MAGA) knew he wasn't president in 2021. That is as credible as me holding a dinner with the presidential seal and saying that I am the president.

bwkemper.bsky.social•2 days ago

If anything, the use of the Presidential seal hurts him legally as federal law prohibits him from using the seal to promote his commercial interests.

I'm not saying that the DoJ is going to prosecute him for this, but a court reviewing immunity for the dinner would note the issue.

jholmes900.bsky.social•2 days ago

Where do I find the article?

bwkemper.bsky.social•2 days ago

Follow the thread Conway quoted.

jholmes900.bsky.social•2 days ago

I tried, but could not find anything. There is a lot I need to learn about using Bluesky. All I see is Conway's post stating: "He doesn’t have immunity for this." How do I find the article? Is there a self-help instruction for Bluesky?

bwkemper.bsky.social•2 days ago

Do you see the skeet by Alexi that George's post is quoting?

If you click on that skeet, it will bring you to the thread that George started with the article.

jholmes900.bsky.social•2 days ago

SCOTUS determined that presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions that were within their "core executive functions". They remanded the case to lower courts to determine his immunity for other actions. I haven't seen any decisions made by lower courts.

bwkemper.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yes, and as I noted, the underlying actions here relate to his private business and thus not his official actions.

I'd also note that the immunity decision is more complex than described as the immunity given was total immunity for core constitutional powers and was rebuttable ...

bwkemper.bsky.social•2 days ago

for official actions that are not core constitutional powers.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-939

heyheygoodbye.bsky.social•2 days ago

He knows all he is doing is illegal so in the #BillionairesBailoutBill he's sneaking in laws that will solidify his "dictatorship". Why are they sneaking laws in here? Let ppl know beside 🔪🔪 to Medicaid, Medicare, ACA to try to ⚰️ us, there's this:
Gifs below. If they don't start, click ▶️ to start.

heyheygoodbye.bsky.social•2 days ago

victor-laszlo.bsky.social•2 days ago

caitbrie.bsky.social•2 days ago

If you read the decision authored by Robert’s it’s pretty clear he doesn’t. And Leavitt’s comments that “it’s on his personal time” doesn’t help. But a) I have no real confidence that Roberts plus 4 more would read his own words that way and b) there’s no legal mechanism now to find out.

brutallyrandom.bsky.social•2 days ago

After a decade of being rewarded from the MAGA base because of his lawlessness I have little belief he’ll face any consequences

Ever

lunaleonsky.bsky.social•2 days ago

I can’t help but blame the Electoral College for all this tragedy. Hillary beat Trump by almost 3 million votes (more than his 2024 popular vote margin). If not for the EC, Trump would have vanished from the political scene and be doing no more damage than cheating at golf.

lunaleonsky.bsky.social•2 days ago

No other U.S. election at any level has anything like the Electoral College. Think about that.

ldodi149.bsky.social•2 days ago

No? Scotus thinks he is king.

inhalo123.bsky.social•2 days ago

Who's going to say/ do...anything?

columbiabyoasis.bsky.social•2 days ago

He doesn't need immunity. All he needs is his supporters to believe he's been persecuted, and nobody will touch him. J6 was important to him for this very reason.

glittergeezer.bsky.social•2 days ago

He will never be held accountable for anything.

lmh82.bsky.social•2 days ago

Didn't the SC leave it to the lower courts to decide what is and isn't an 'official act'?

kmr-kevin.bsky.social•2 days ago

But you can be sure that any decision on immunity by the lower courts will be appealed to SCOTUS, so SCOTUS will end up having the final say on what acts are and are not immune.

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yes, and no. With the original ruling, SCOTUS sent it back to Chutkan to determine what is official and what wasn't. Had that gone through, it would have been appealed to the Court of Appeals to review Chutkan's work and then that would have been appealed to SCOTUS.

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

SCOTUS doesn't hear every appeal. If SCOTUS was satisfied that both Chutkan and the Court of Appeals properly applied their ruling, they would have just let the Court of Appeals ruling stand.

kmr-kevin.bsky.social•2 days ago

In any case involving Trump, I would read SCOTUS's refusal to hear an appeal as them having the final say, *effectively*.

hobbesjosh.bsky.social•2 days ago

Fair enough. But that would apply to any appeal to SCOTUS that they refuse to hear. SCOTUS has limited time and can't deal with every appeal and therefore they only want to deal with issues of consequence where they need to step in.

kmr-kevin.bsky.social•2 days ago

I neglected to include "ultimately" before "appealed", guessing that the implication would be understood.