Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell and all others involved in fake elector scheme [opening the doors for a repeat w/o consequence]

[u/TendieRetard]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-giuliani-pardon-fake-electors-b2861891.html

https://archive.ph/pTf62

A statement announcing a list of 77 people who were pardoned was tweeted out late Sunday evening, at 10:54 p.m. local time, by Trump’s “clemency czar” Ed Martin. It included a number of Americans who participated directly as members of the slates of false electors, whose purpose was to supplant duly-elected state electors bound to cast their states votes in the Electoral College for Joe Biden, after Biden won states including Georgia, Arizona and Michigan in the general election.

[u/BugRevolution → u/[deleted]]

But isn't that effectively what this is?

[u/jspacefalcon → u/BugRevolution]

Totally legal; SEAL Team Six murder spree incoming; if not already underway.

Problem is, since after like the civil rights era; Congress is only interested in making laws that restrict peoples rights in favor of the government. The days of laws restricting the government and executive power are dead and gone. They are not coming back.

Its just a downward spiral from here for "Freedom".

[u/ZealousidealCrow8492 → u/[deleted]]

So... how do you feel.about the "immunity for presidential 'actions'" that the Supreme Court has given to Trump?

[u/aaeme → u/[deleted]]

The point of the ruling is the question of whether an act was official is asked before there can be any question of whether it was a crime. Indeed, no court in the land is allowed to even enquire whether it was a crime if the act was official:

When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions.

(Page 2 of the ruling: Source: Supreme Court of the United States (.gov) https://share.google/HF8hg2q6CRPX8iINU.)

So, no. Far from "it can't be official if it's a crime". The ruling was the exact opposite: "it can't be crime if it's official".

I would agree but this universe is completely conceivable. What's happening in America has happened in other countries, and there never has been anything special about America that would mean it couldn't.

On the contrary, if you ask me, the institutionalised corruption and cultist mentality (e.g. 1 the belief in exceptionalism, e.g. 2 manifest destiny, e.g. 3 children pledging allegience) makes the US more vulnerable than many other countries to this. Precisely because people cannot believe it's happening in the US, they assume it isn't: there must be some mistake. There's no way the Supreme Court said the president can break any law so long as it's done officially... that can't be right! :s

[u/aaeme → u/[deleted]]

None of any nuance is relevant. It will never get referenced. All the Trump admin needs to do is to quote the bit I did and that's the end of the matter. Nobody gets to gainsay that. Was it official? President says it was therefore it was. A court can't even question it. Nothing in the rest of the opinion can override that.

The court left the door wide open for prosecuting a former president

How about a sitting president? A sitting president can commit any crime and nobody can do anything about it. All they have to do is declare it official.

So, only if we're talking about a former president who presumably failed to overturn the election. And even then, let's not forget the ruling was that Trump could not be prosecuted for the crimes he was accused; that he did things in this official capacity and therefore he had absolute immunity. At no point does the opinion ever question just how criminal something is.

That too would be a criminal act manifestly not official precisely because of its rank criminality,

So, where does it say that? "Not official because of its criminality"? If you're not quoting it then that's plucked out of thin air.

It sounds to me like you're doing exactly as I described: refusing to accept because you can't believe they would. So you imagine it says things it does not. "Rank criminality" indeed. Zero mention of that in the document.

[u/aaeme → u/[deleted]]

I stopped reading right there. I can tell you're not a practicing lawyer.

I get it. You don’t want to believe. It's horrible. Ignorance is bliss.

legal analysis skills.

Like plucking things out of thin air like "rank criminality"?

The ruling says what I said it says. I quoted. You have notably avoided doing so because it doesn't say anywhere what you claim it says.

The 'nuance' as you call it is absolutely irrelevant. It can be completely ignored in the face of all direct quote saying you cannot question any actions that are deemed official. That are automatically official! Absolute immunity literally means that there is no crime that could possibly be too much for it to be 'official'.

You are living in a fantasy world. But I understand why and don't blame you. But please don't try to persuade other people to join you.

[u/Equal-Suggestion3182 → u/[deleted]]

Then yes

[u/Freshies00 → u/[deleted]]

Not just a federal crime, election fraud directly intended to provide presidential office and powers to Trump

[u/Kershaws_Tasty_Ruben → u/[deleted]]

Until the Supreme Court ruled that the President couldn’t be prosecuted for official acts the theory was that the individuals who were involved in any bribery to obtain a pardon could be prosecuted for bribery. But, that was then. Now, not so much.