Trump's Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Just Came Back to Bite Him

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The Supreme Court’s decision to expand the definition of presidential immunity may have just caused a hiccup for Donald Trump’s administration.

A federal judge ruled Monday that Trump’s FBI must disclose records from its Mar-a-Lago case file, complying with a FOIA request by Business Insider’s Jason Leopold. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell decided that the Supreme Court’s decision—combined with his return to the White House and its executive privileges—has insulated Trump enough from further criminal prosecution to allow the release of documents.

“With the far dampened possibility of any criminal investigation to gather evidence about a president’s conduct and of any public enforcement proceeding against a president, the [Supreme Court’s] decision … has left a FOIA request as a critical tool for the American public to keep apprised of a president’s conduct,” Howell ruled.

Howell also ordered the FBI to provide a timetable of release for files pertaining to Leopold’s request, with a mandatory update required by February 20.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-supreme-court-immunity-ruling-214309019.html

[RussBLib]

1. so, do you think...

...that if it can be proved that Trump has been ignoring judges decisions (for instance, freezing funds when he has been ordered to un-freeze them), could Trump be found in contempt of court and maybe even jailed? Doesn't the immunity ruling protect Trump when doing "official duties" of the office? Or is it broad to include even non-official duties?

I'd like to hear a Trump lawyer claim that every single thing that Trump has done falls under the purview of "official duties."

https://russblib.blogspot.com

[Justice matters.]

5. Well, for starter, it's not an "official act" to ignore the Constitution

like him and Elies do as they ignore the role of Congress in the creation and the funding of the appropriations it passed in a budget which was signed by Joe Biden.

It's not an "official act" to ditch a department or many just because they don't like what they're doing (or because they want to take the money to, instead, give tax cuts to billionaires like themselves...).

It's a crime against the Constitution.

[AdamGG]

6. I just listened to George Conway talking about this on Youtube

and it's bleak. If Trump and his "government" ignore federal court rulings and continue to do what is prohibited and he is then held in contempt, it would be up to a US Marshal to arrest him for it. They are part of the executive branch and Trump's appointees wouldn't carry it out.

We're left to hope that Trump will hopefully not disregard a court order and will stop doing things when they say to (unlikely) or to hope that he could be removed through impeachment by Congress (never would get the necessary 67 votes in the Senate, as we've seen & it's worse now).

So, there basically isn't a mechanism to stop him short of action by the citizens in the streets, which he would likely deploy the military against - and all the lovely Jan 6th militia people.

I guess we need to throw sand in the gears, whenever possible, and hope that there are still functional elections in 2026 and 2028.

The George Conway interview (on the Bulwark) is below. It's interesting and sobering.

[Blues Heron]

2. Trump is doing enough indiscriminate and cruel damage that the pukes are going to have to remove him.

It will quickly be too much even for them. The guy is demented and dangerous. Cutting off food and medicine without any plan to arrange stop gap measures? Evil. Lock him up. even the pukes have to realize he is killing people.

[Silent Type]

3. When they start feeling it, you are right. Know of some trumpsters who are whining about their kids

who are on chopping block in good federal jobs. Or, wait until they have to give another $500 a month to grandma because of Social Security, Medicare, etc., cuts.

[dickthegrouch]

4. Not "he": "They" are killing people

Nuremburg held all the minions accountable too.
Silence = Assent
Every single repuke that's been silent for the last 12 years is equally culpable.

[LymphocyteLover]

7. we can only hope

[returnee]

8. Do I understand correctly...

…that this is like when, for example, you are granted immunity in order to testify at trial, you cannot plead the 5th amendment, because you are no longer in jeopardy of prosecution?

[returnee]

9. In other words...

…it seems he is backed into a corner: If his actions were presidential actions, then per the SCOTUS ruling he is immune and has no right to withhold the information; or his actions were not presidential and he is in jeopardy of criminal charges.

[dickthegrouch]

10. A delicious catch-22 /nt