Posted originally on the CTH on July 1, 2024 | Sundance

…“The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.”… 

In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court of the United Stated ruled that presidents have “absolute immunity” for official “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.”  [SEE RULING HERE] Also, “official acts” cannot be used as evidence against the president in a criminal case.

As expected, the high court instructed the lower trial courts to hold specific evidentiary hearings on each anti-Trump criminal count, and determine which counts, if any, related to official or unofficial acts.

The Supreme Court is essentially telling the lower courts to go back and look at each citation and review which claims are official acts and which claims related to unofficial acts. The Supreme Court ruled that presidents may not have immunity for non-official conduct. However, when the judicial review cannot differentiate, the court cannot look at motives for the decisions.

“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” the Court ruled. “Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct.”

“The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct,” the Court added.

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts,” the Court concluded. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.”

The Supreme Court held Monday not only that Donald Trump could not be prosecuted for official acts but that those acts could not be used as evidence of a crime.

“That proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly — invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.”

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority. This ruling will certainly delay any further court action by Special Counsel Jack Smith during the DC Lawfare trial, until after the election in November.

The WASHINGTON POST is not happy…. “A few key points:

• The court ruled that Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for any conduct “involving his discussions with Justice Department officials” — a significant segment of his federal indictment. For instance, this would seem to take off the table Trump’s interactions with Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, a key figure who has been indicted in Georgia alongside Trump, as well as other top Justice Department officials telling Trump his voter-fraud theories were wrong.
• It ruled that he is presumed immune from prosecution for pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election on Jan. 6, 2021, because Trump’s acts “involve official conduct.” It said the burden is on the government to prove that prosecuting Trump for this wouldn’t “pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
• It left open the possibility that Trump can be prosecuted for other actions, particularly those with regard to people outside the executive branch and in the states. It ruled that “this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function.”

All of which means some of Trump’s conduct can still be prosecuted, but some cannot. And figuring out what can and cannot be is still to be determined.

The other crucial point is this: The court ruled not only that Trump can’t be prosecuted for certain conduct, but also that conduct for which he is immune can’t even be used as evidence against him. So, his interactions with Justice Department officials, for instance, can’t be used to establish a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election. (link)

.