So... the immunity ruling... what changed here?

[Takket]

They granted immunity for official acts, but not unofficial acts. Which is exactly how I thought this worked already. You can order the killing of a foreign combatant but not the guy you caught sleeping with your wife.

So since inciting the insurrection and stealing classified documents are not official acts, what is the problem here? I’m not aware that DOJ had any intention of prosecuting drumpf for any “official” act. Nor should they.

Am I missing something?

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Think about who gets the ultimately decide what is and is not an official act

As far as I know, and I wish some attorneys would chime in here… the case against Trump for the insurrection and the case with even the missing documents if he took them while he was still president can both be appealed if necessary by the traitor all the way to the Supreme Court Until they find a court that says everything was official.

And surely by now we know that this Supreme Court will say anything he did was official to give him cover, where are the experts who’ve been saying for months that there’s no way the Supreme Court will give him immunity and where are the people that keep slamming those of us who keep sounding the alarm bell about everything, God dammit.

[RandomNumbers]

4. But about those documents - refusing to return them promptly,

was not an official act, right? How could it be?

Trump mishandled classified information AFTER he was no longer President.

Right?

(I am not very knowledgeable in this area so would be happy to see clarification from someone more expert than I)

[Eliot Rosewater]

7. Your mistake is you're using logic and the law, Supreme Court no longer does

But I hear you

[intrepidity]

5. Bingo

You seized upon the crux: courts will be called upon to decide, and any adverse decisions will be appealed all the way to SCOTUS, who seem to slways find a way. So Biden must appoint more SC justices.

[DarthDem]

2. Not missing anything

Except that there’s going to be evidentiary hearings before Judge Chutkan, almost certainly before the election. That’s bad for Trump.

[DarthDem]

3. .

Double post; sorry

[bigtree]

6. it reamins to be seen

...charges may survive, but not the evidence the DOJ has been using to bolster their charges.

[Goodheart]

8. How is a speech to the public not an official act?

[Lonestarblue]

9. What I find unsettling is Roberts' comment on what can be used as evidence to determine official versus unofficial.

Or even criminal behavior. Read that last sentence. Is Roberts saying that allegations of criminal behavior cannot be based on private records of the people around Trump or the testimony of his advisers who heard him give instructions for illegal acts? I hope one of the DU legal eagles chimes in here because this seems to shield a tremendous amount of evidence since a president may claim that everyone who works in the WH is an adviser.

“On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial." --Roberts

[Takket]

10. Ah. Okay thank you

So he can probably still go to trial but now we’re going to have month and months of wrangling over official acts. So. Shit.

[republianmushroom]

11. Question, Who determines whether an act is official act or it is unofficial act ?

And what is the difference between an official act and an unofficial act ?