Putting aside the ludicrousness of this argument, what good would a gag order do if Biden violates it? He's immune from prosecution.

I understood that reference!

Here's a question.

Is it even possible to bring charges against a sitting or former president at all now, based on this ruling?

As of right now, "official acts" are absolutely immune from prosecution or investigation, and evidence gathered from such communications cannot be used against him in any way. And anything the President does is an official act until the Supreme Court deems otherwise. Which means that somebody has to bring a case against the President. Which means you need evidence. Which you can't get because it's covered by the President's absolute immunity. And you have to have standing.

Who would have standing? The DOJ? The one with the decades-long rule of not charging a sitting president? The one that takes direct orders from the man he's supposed to be investigating? Good luck even attempting to file charges while remaining employed after lunch. And what kind of evidence could they bring? If Trump called ST6 and ordered a hit on Dolly Parton, how can you prove that when the call to ST6 would be classified in the first place, the mere existence of the phone call cannot be used against him, and he can tell the prosecutor to go pound sand if he starts snooping around? "Your Honor, I believe that the President ordered a hit on Dolly Parton.........Yes, I know the President denied that a phone call was even made, yes I know his phone records are protected by absolute immunity and he doesn't have to acknowledge the existence of the phone call let alone what was said.....No, there's no other way I can prove this phone call even took place....."

No standing + No evidence = no case. Ironically, the only person who would even have standing to sue would be the POTUS himself if he finds that he somehow needs more power.

You could well be right, but I have a hard time believing that any court - even this grotesquely corrupt one - would attempt such rulings.

gestures broadly

Have you been paying attention lately?

So far, while obviously a significant threat, their immunity rulings have actually been broadly in line with established precedent. And they specifically stated that the precise definition of an “official act” was something that was going to have to be worked out in future rulings.

Here's the problem. Attempting to prosecute someone based on that logic borders on entrapment. Based on the way the ruling is worded, Trump could call Seal Team 6 tomorrow and "tell them to take out . Oh, and by the way, take out Dolly Parton on the way there. " , and nobody could do anything about it. Since he was in the midst of carrying out an official duty, he can't even be asked about the contents of the phone call, let alone if he ordered them to take out Dolly Parton. " Sure, the Supreme Court may very well rule that it was not an official act....years from now, after it's made its way through the rest of the court system. But you can't go back and charge someone with a crime for committing an act that was perfectly legal when it was committed. And right now, based on the wording of the Supreme Court ruling, the President would be absolutely immune from even being investigated for it, let alone prosecuted -- until they say otherwise. Which would be fine for whoever is #2 on Trump's hit list, but it would still suck to be Dolly Parton.

Even with as cynical as I am, I find it hard to believe that they actually intend to rule that anything that might be done in the midst of carrying out some entirely and completely unrelated official act is afforded the same protection as that official act. That would rather obviously make it so that the president could, for instance, pause in the middle of signing a bill and do literally anything - absolutely anything at all - and be entirely immune from any and all consequences.

Yes - it is possible that they’ll rule that way, but again, even as cynical as I am, I can’t imagine that they actually will, if for no other reason than that that would empower the president to order the summary execution of all Supreme Court justices.

That's pretty much exactly what they said would happen. They spelled it out in great detail. If the President is engaging in an official act, he cannot be investigated for it, and the act and anything related to it cannot be used as evidence against him, even if it's evidence of an unrelated crime. Which means yes, right now he can literally pause in the middle of signing a bill, order the military to nuke Wisconsin because he hates cheese, finish signing the bill, and nobody can touch him.

They really went out of their way to cover for Trump, except for the part where Biden would probably have immunity for having him killed.

Plot twist: This is all an elaborate plan by the deep state to have Trump killed, mafia style.

Ever seen Goodfellas? Remember when they said Tommy was going to be a made man, but in reality he showed up and got the back of his head blown off? Same thing here. The Supreme Court rules for Presidential immunity. Trump thinks he's just been crowned a king. Meanwhile, Biden is covertly ordering the Secret Service to instruct Trump's bodyguards to take him out. Trump gets offed by his own security team, Biden is untouchable because they can't even ask him if he called the Secret Service, let alone oredered the hit. Dark Brandon emerges, putting his sunglasses on CSI style, while a thundering YEAHHHHHHHHHH can be heard in the background. Later, rumors circulate that while Clarence Thomas and Joe Biden don't see eye to eye on many things, they both agreed that Trump had to go.

Actually, it's much more simplistic than that.

Some of the checks he signed were signed at the WH. And if I recall correctly, he signed them with a bunch of other stuff. What this means is that him signing the checks was part of an "official act", even if signing those specific checks wasn't. Which means based on the SC ruling, he can't even be questioned about signing those checks, nor can he have the fact that he signed them used against him even though they weren't part of his official duties. Take out him signing the checks at the WH and you lose a good chunk of the crime he was committed for, which will likely be used as the basis for throwing the case out.

I don't like Trump as much as the next guy, but this ruling does effectively make him a king that cannot be prosecuted. Every single one of his cases is going to go away as a result of this ruling:

• The NY case, as I said above, will likely be thrown out because some of the crime was committed while in the WH.
• The GA case, Fani Willis' conduct not withstanding, will likely be thrown out on the basis that Trump calling the GA SoS was an "official act". The contents of the call, criminal as it is, will likely be deemed untouchable since it happened while he was committing an official act.
• The Florida case was never going to go to trial anyway because of Cannon's continuing interference, but I suspect that she'll just follow the step-by-step blueprint that Clarence Thomas gave her to just have the whole thing dismissed. And I expect the DC case to be dismissed by the supreme court once they rule that special counsels are invalid.

Whether or not it's "what democracy should look like" is an opinion often based on whether you're on (or think you're on) the giving or receiving end of the oppression.

Great. Now do Florida's.

Not that it matters. Not a single case is going to be heard before the election, and the chances of a trial being held before the inauguration is essentially zero, especially after the recent Supreme Court ruling. If Trump wins the election, there is exactly nothing that would be able to stop him from being a free man, immune from all further prosecution, and literally able to do anything he wants with impunity when he wakes up in the morning on January 21, 2025.

Anyone saying this now is guaranteed to not even be employed by lunchtime on that morning, let alone pursuing a case against him.

And pretty soon, there won't be a conviction. As written, the Supreme Court ruling invalidates some of the evidence that was used against him, which invalidates the conviction. The guy's going to get away with the whole god damned thing, and there's a very real chance he's going to get a 4 year victory lap as well.

May you find solace wherever you seek it, because we're all gonna need a lot of it pretty damn soon.

And that review will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, where they just got finished saying that acts taken in office can't even be used as evidence against him in unrelated cases. By that logic, it's pretty open-and-shut. Trump received documents and signed checks while he was president and taking care of official business. The fact that he signed those checks in office makes him signing them inadmissible evidence, and without that evidence a lot of the case falls apart. His convictions will likely be thrown out.

They're not upending it. They're basically shitting all over it.

In the past couple of weeks alone, they've:

• Ruled that people who participated in the J6 insurrection to obstruct the counting of votes cannot be charged with obstruction.
• Made bribery legal
• Made the President a king that is above the law (unless they say he isn't)
• Put Trump's state conviction in serious jeopardy by ruling that evidence collected while he was in office is inadmissable
• Given judge Cannon a roadmap to dismiss the Florida case against him with their blessing.
• Stated that they don't actually have to abide by any code of ethics and can basically do what they want.
• Neutered Congress's regulatory authority, forcing it to cede even more power to the executive branch

These people could literally spend the 4th of july decreeing that the 2020 election was stolen, and Trump is therefore president for life and it wouldn't even get me to raise my eyebrows at this point. Rulings across the country seem to be doing nothing more than paving the way for Trump's return and making sure what few restraints existed during his first term are now gone.