This seems like a good way for Trump to get himself jailed DESPITE his massive grant of immunity in Trump v. US, since it can hardly be an official act of the president to openly defy an act of Congress like this. - ThreadSky

whstancil.bsky.social • 6 days ago

This seems like a good way for Trump to get himself jailed DESPITE his massive grant of immunity in Trump v. US, since it can hardly be an official act of the president to openly defy an act of Congress like this.

Reposted from Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Your friendly reminder that it is literally a federal felony punishable by up to five years in prison for the President, Vice President, or any employee of the White House to directly or indirectly ask the IRS to open an investigation into any specific taxpayer.

Comments

spankyq.bsky.social•6 days ago

According to Alito and Thomas it sure could be.

spankyq.bsky.social•6 days ago

I mean… https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3lnb4agsmw22w

madamedefarge2a.bsky.social•6 days ago

Bahahahah, sorry. Thought this was the chuckle of the day. Seriously, the President decides what's an official act, not Congress or SCOTUS (otherwise, they would have spelled those out in their full immunity ruling). He can, will and does anything he wishes now. There is little that the courts

madamedefarge2a.bsky.social•6 days ago

do to HIM. He is immune! Totally, fully, completely, 100% immunity. Now SCOTUS is reconsidering their ruling of immunity? Little late and I think the tigers out of the bag and hard to put back in now.

Normalcy bias will destroy the USA.

blandphilosophy.bsky.social•6 days ago

even Trump seems to get that he's doing flagrantly illegal shit given his offhand comment about using "his law firms" for free legal representation after his presidency

youtackything.bsky.social•6 days ago

If we can get him out of office, absolutely.

ggobs.bsky.social•6 days ago

Self pardons have to be settled but pardoning prior to being indicted, convinctions, and sentencing is a thing.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions

ggobs.bsky.social•6 days ago

Even if self pardons aren't held up, if (big if) there was removal, Pres Vance would pardon, or stepdown the day before his term is over and have Pres Eyeliner would again pardon.

kaybrizzie.bsky.social•6 days ago

Raising, again, the question of self-pardons.

mister-sterling.bsky.social•6 days ago

And if I recall correctly, this law was enacted to prevent those dirty Democrats (namely Bill Clinton) from attacking right wing non-profits.

huckdillinger.bsky.social•6 days ago

And it’s not the first time he’s done it.

garyjonesart.bsky.social•6 days ago

How do we get around Pam Bondi?

whstancil.bsky.social•6 days ago

You get rid of Trump and prosecute him immediately after, what should have happened the first time

nero-wolfe.bsky.social•6 days ago

Defenestrating Trump would not automatically result in the removal of his appointees.

Vance could take or leave them.

Bondi herself could (and should) be impeached.

whstancil.bsky.social•6 days ago

A pretty stark illustration of Trump’s lawlessness that despite being given almost limitless room to operate he cares so little about the rules that he’s somehow trodding into the few tiny corners that could still get him imprisoned. He despises constitutional government, the very notion of it

reggiedunlop.bsky.social•6 days ago

He despises anyone or anything that tells him what he cannot do.

notalawyer.bsky.social•6 days ago

i don’t think this is a coherent interpretation of “official acts.” if an act was unofficial because it violated the law, what would the point of immunity be?

glosson.bsky.social•6 days ago

i think the argument is that a thing that is specifically circumscribed by law as not just outside the lawful authority of the president, but so far outside of it that congress expressly stipulated "no", that's a pretty strong indication that it cannot be an official act

chokoreetob.bsky.social•6 days ago

Bad argument.

glosson.bsky.social•6 days ago

one thing to violate a generally applicable law and say "but i'm president so i'm built different" (bad already), buy another thing altogether to say "sure Article I passed and Article II signed something that says this thing is specifically wrong *for me*, but fuck it"

clarealice.bsky.social•6 days ago

The majority addressed this specifically and said even if Congress tries to specifically bar the president from carrying out specific acts, they are wrong to do so if the acts are official acts (and thus the fact that Congress says the president can’t do them does not make them any less official)

clarealice.bsky.social•6 days ago

Peter’s point, I think, is that the Supreme Court pretty explicitly intended the official acts immunity as a limitation on the power of congress to criminalize a president’s activities—they were limiting what Congress can say no to

clarealice.bsky.social•6 days ago

Just to avoid any impending misunderstanding, Peter is very much on record saying the ruling is terrible and I’ll make explicit that I agree—the thing that makes it terrible is that it limits Congress’s ability to criminalize executive misconduct

joshmg.bsky.social•6 days ago

Is there a pseudo Youngstown argument here? Not a con law lawyer and I’m out of my depth but that’s the vibe? No idea if there’s any doctrinal support for the idea that bc legislative acts can help define the scope of exec authority, they can do the same to whether it’s official capacity

zechariahj.bsky.social•6 days ago

Surely lib lawyers can will this into a debate. Just like the right has done with the 14th amendment.

kurtbenjamin.bsky.social•6 days ago

Right, this is pretty clearly an “official act.” The real question is whether it’s still an “official act” if he did it while wearing a McDonald’s drive thru uniform?

penman1961.bsky.social•6 days ago

lol you're ADORABLE

Trump will never EVER spend a day in jail. EVER.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply