Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday misrepresented in a social media post what the U.S. Supreme Court’s Monday ruling on presidential immunity means for his civil and criminal cases.
“TOTAL EXONERATION!” he wrote in the post on his Truth Social platform. “It is clear that the Supreme Court’s Brilliantly Written and Historic Decision ENDS all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me, including the WHITE HOUSE AND DOJ INSPIRED CIVIL HOAXES in New York.”
But although the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly stated that the president "is not above the law" and immunity is only a factor when it involves an "official act" — the justices sent the case back to lower courts to determine if the acts at the center of Trump's case were "official" — the ruling raised a series of frightening possibilities, according to the trio of dissenting justices.
Writing for a 6-3 majority, Chief Justice Roberts announced that presidents have a presumption of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. He identified a handful of obvious official acts that underpin Special Counsel Jack Smith’s four-count indictment of Donald Trump for his actions relating to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, which must therefore now be excised from the case — while at the same time refusing to draw any lines for unofficial acts, instead punting that question to the lower courts for the justices to resolve in an inevitable appeal another day
In an interview with CNN, the attorney, Will Scharf, also argued that Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election qualify as official acts, which would shield the former president from prosecution.
Trump’s lawyers say jurors should not have heard the Hicks testimony, and other evidence from the ex-president’s stint in the White House that they claim unfairly influenced the jury.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/02/official-act-trump-immunity-trial-judge/
The Supreme Court sent Trump’s federal Jan. 6 case back to a trial judge to decide three questions: Which alleged acts by Trump charged by special counsel Jack Smith fall under the executive branch’s exclusive constitutional authority and are therefore immune from prosecution? Which are official acts but prosecutable because they pose no danger of intruding on the power or function of the presidency? And what acts can be prosecuted because they involve private conduct, such as actions taken by Trump as a candidate, not as an officeholder?
Garnel disagrees with this
Garnel IronheartJuly 4, 2024 at 5:28 PM
The Constitution defines what official acts are available to the President. He cannot push someone into traffic and claim it's an official act. Kal v'chomer activating a SEAL team to go and assassinate an American citizen who is no objective threat to the country.
The hysteria surrounding this ruling is not unlike claiming Jews poisoned the local well.
https://www.newsweek.com/project-2025-heritage-foundation-republicans-american-revolution-1920870
In a statement to Newsweek, Roberts echoed the remarks he made on X and said, "Unfortunately, it's the Left that has a long history of violence, so it's up to them to allow a peaceful transfer of power. As we saw in 2020, organized groups on the Left have the capacity to carry out violent riots, take over cities, and weaponize taxpayer-funded agencies to target their political opponents."
Roberts outlined how the ruling might help transform the federal government with conservative policy proposals, should Donald Trump win the White House in November and adopt Project 2025. The Project 2025 website states that it is a presidential transition project seeking to "build on four pillars that will, collectively, pave the way for an effective conservative administration: a policy agenda, personnel, training, and a 180-day playbook."
But as Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained in her dissent, the lesson from Nixon is that when presidents use their power to commit official acts in pursuit of a criminal scheme, that is when we should be most concerned about their conduct and most eager for them to face accountability. Because that is when their criminal conduct poses the most heightened threat to democracy. If the president can take this immense power we entrust him with and manipulate it for corrupt ends—knowing he will never face accountability—then we have fundamentally changed the nature of what the presidency is. He is no longer a person who is elected by the people to represent them for four years. He is an emperor who walks into office, surveys his new powers, and gets to decide how to use them for his own corrupt advantage—to enrich himself, to entrench his authority, to prevent the peaceful transition to power, to even execute his rivals. I just think that is exactly the opposite of how the executive power had been understood until Monday morning. And I find myself baffled that six justices would say that presidential accountability is now constitutionally prohibited rather than constitutionally required
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4754808-fauci-no-doubt-biden-capable-as-president/
He called Biden “very probing in his questions, very analytical, very calm about things,” and said during briefings, Biden always asked “very relevant questions.”
Fauci continued, “So my interactions with him, I have to say, have been very, very positive, in every way.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4753439-heritage-leader-second-american-revolution/
The leader of conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation argued the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity will reinforce a “second American Revolution,” which he said would “remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
Trump attorney Will Scharf told CNN Monday night that some acts alleged in the former president’s federal election subversion indictment do constitute private conduct but the effort to put forth slates of alternate electors in 2020 from key battleground states is not one of them.
“We believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency,” Scharf said, noting the Supreme Court left that question for lower courts to decide.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4750581-supreme-court-immunity-nixon/
John Dean, former White House counsel for the Nixon administration, said he believes former President Nixon “would have survived” the Watergate scandal if the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling issued Monday, which largely shields former presidents from criminal prosecution for actions in office, existed at the time.
There is a widespread claim that not responding when someone insults or embarrasses you gives you the power of Beracha
Does anyone know its source?
I have been told it comes from the statement "toleh eretz al blima" but can find nothing, it is also claimed the following is the source but I don't see how?
Chullin (89a)With regard to that verse, Rabbi Ile’a says: The world endures only in the merit of one who restrains [shebolem] himself during a quarrel, as it is stated: “He hangs the earth upon nothing [belima]. Rabbi Abbahu says: The world endures only in the merit of one who renders himself as if he were non-existent, as it is stated: “And underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deuteronomy 33:27), i.e., one who considers himself to be underneath everything else is the everlasting arm that upholds the world.
Rambam (Sanhedrin 26:06) Although a judge or a nasi has the right to look past affronts to his honor, he cannot look past being cursed. Similarly, with regard to other people, even though the person who was cursed is prepared to look past the matter, the person who uttered the curse is lashed, for he committed a transgression and incurred liability. If, however, a person is obligated to be placed under a ban of ostracism, because he conducted himself in an unbridled manner in court, and the judges desire to look past the affront to their honor and not impose a ban of ostracism, they have that license, provided it will not lead to a decline in the honor of the Creator. For example, people at large were repudiating the words of the Torah and the judges. Since the people overstepped the bounds, the court must act firmly and punish as they see necessary.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fake-electors-scheme-supreme-court-1919928
Donald Trump lawyer has said that an alleged fake elector scheme was an "official act" and so should be immune from prosecution in Trump's federal election interference case.
Trump's team is alleged to have created and submitted fraudulent certificates to falsely claim Trump had won the Electoral College vote in certain states to disrupt President Joe Biden's victory.
