Even assuming this is a crime, it's not a crime for the president, because he now enjoys immunity.
"The President ... may not be prosecuted
for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
"The President ... may not be prosecuted
for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
Reposted from
Lily Batchelder
The President just effectively signed a statement that he is committing a crime, violating a criminal statute enacted with overwhelming bipartisan majorities (it passed 96-2 in the Senate). Here is the law and his post. 1/3
Comments
https://www.lawdork.com/p/the-scotus-immunity-decision-and-trump-two
(I'm not a doomer, FYI -- I'm encouraged by the courts pushing back against Trump on all fronts -- but I never miss an opportunity to slam Roberts for letting it get this far.)
The US Supreme Court needs to reverse Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024). [A President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within his official duties.]
A President’s choices of action should necessarily exclude crimes.
#HoldTrumpAccountable
It's a crime even if justice roberts thinks we have to let him do it to protect the powers of the presidency or whatever.
My understanding of immunity was that "X is immune from prosecution for crime Y" does not mean that "Y is not a crime for person X."
A diplomat who murders someone has still committed a crime, for example.
Related: just because someone is immune from prosecution for an act, does that mean other branches/actors have to allow the act to take place?
Congress has the power of the purse, both to tax and spend. This law means this specific aspect of tax policy is *not* delegated to the Executive branch to modify.
Under you leadership, our democracy has been undone.
From campaign donations, voter suppression, and Presidential immunity, you have given our President the power to act with impunity.
With autocracy given free reign; the rest of us left to feel the pain.
That should be an entertaining transcript.
And he can certainly be impeached for it.
That is, I would have thought (as, again, Not A Lawyer) that "there is a law against this" determined whether something is a crime, not "the perpetrator can be successfully prosecuted for it". Is that wrong?
I don’t think that’s what they meant.
(This is a sarcastic question, of course it is from a legal perspective)
And even if we manage to elect a Dem president despite them, I'm sure this SCOTUS could decide such a case differently for a Dem president because ... reasons.
For the unconstitutional he executed.
—LF
Convict
Remove
Example: POTUS as C&C orders a soldier to obstruct an FBI agent. C&C is a core power.
The President was ensuring the tax code was faithfully executed when he ordered the IRS Director to violate the law and change Harvard's NPO status.
That rum and coke tonight is calling...
The act is still illegal (until SCOTUS rules otherwise) and others beside POTUS committing them may still be prosecuted.
That statue VERY clearly states it is only a crime when it relates to a tax liability. I feel like I am losing my mind seeing lawyers incorrectly posting this around all day (and the past few weeks as this story began) when it’s wrong in the FIRST subsection - 7217(a).
I can't figure out if the scotus knew DJT would be this bad and felt okay about it, or if they are in any way shocked and thinking they may need to revisit their decision. I'd be interested to hear what more informed people think.
do not accept these assertions please
The IRS, FTC, etc. are not in the Constitution. They are Congressionally-created, and Congress should therefore have a stronger argument in what power it allocates prez.
Even if the criminal component can't operate to throw Trump in jail if he tries it, it should effectively nullify his ability to actually cause the revocation. It's not a plenary power; the power to give tax-exempt status is one Congress created, and they created it with limits.
In any event, what about 26 usc 6103, which his tweet also violated?