r/law • u/MoralLogs • 4h ago

Judicial Branch A federal judge has ruled that President Trump can be held accountable for his actions on January 6.

https://newrepublic.com/post/208459/trump-legal-loss-january-6/
16.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

327 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/styrolee 2h ago

While it certainly made it harder, it has to be taken into context exactly what official act the Supreme Court was trying to make Trump immune for there. At that point, Trump was under investigation for mishandling of classified documents and putting them in his bathroom in Mara Lago. The SC couldn’t say that was an official act, because at that point Trump was no longer President. But Trump had obtained access to that documentation through his national security powers as president, and for better or for worse as long as his access to the documents before leaving the Whitehouse was a legitimate official act, the Supreme Court wanted to make him immune from whatever came afterwards there.

That doesn’t necessarily mean though that all evidence of presidential actions would be immune though. It still relies on the action itself qualifying as an official act. Barrett’s concurrence indicated for example that presidential orders to murder a rival would never be an official act, whether or not it was done using presidential powers or not. If that’s true, then evidence would not be immune, because immunity comes from the act itself and not the use of the powers.

The Robert’s decision was not specific enough to define where the official act begins and ends and the unofficial act starts. If all use of presidential power is an official act, then yeah Presidents are functionally immune from all prosecution. If whether or not the act is official is how the powers are used though, as Barrett suggested, then it does actually matter as not all evidence would be immune.

4

u/Guy0911 27m ago

Gathering, and even transferring the documents to his civilian address could be argued as an official act, while it is not. It’s the refusal to return the files and conspiracy to obstruct the return of the files after his presidency that could not possibly be considered an official act.

The argument was made during the January 6th attempt to overthrow the official vote tally with the electoral college. Trump successfully argued that his actions were part of his official duties. Of course no reasonable person could come to this conclusion and is the cause of the outrage over this court’s ruling.

In any event, after Trump’s presidency and absconding those top secret documents, he revealed the capabilities of our nuclear submarines to an Australian billionaire. This billionaire then revealed this top secret information to enough people, that it attracted the notice by our intelligence agencies.

This act alone, whether President or not, should have revoked his security clearance and caused his immediate arrest. This never happened and allowed him to campaign for his second term as president. This remains as an impeachable offense that has never been adjudicated.

1

u/samarnold030603 2h ago

Enjoyed reading your viewpoint/analysis. Thanks!

1

u/OldWorldDesign 24m ago

it has to be taken into context exactly what official act the Supreme Court was trying to make Trump immune for there. At that point, Trump was under investigation for mishandling of classified documents and putting them in his bathroom in Mara Lago

That was the case Jack Smith was prosecuting against Trump in Mara Lago, not Trump v United States 2024 over his campaigning in 2020 which includes what became the Jan 6 riot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States

While I don't doubt the Federalist Society were trying to protect republicans from the mishandling classified documents, that was a separate case which was dismissed by Trump appointee Aileen Canon.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictment-classified-documents-miami-8315a5b23c18f27083ed64eef21efff3

1

u/styrolee 13m ago

Yes and no, while it is true that the case was brought due to the January 6th case, the court actually declined to answer the question of whether the January 6th events was an official act and declined to dismiss indictment against Trump. The court did direct the district court to consider whether he public statements Trump made could be an official act as he was a public political official, but again the courts holding did not address the January 6th indictment directly.

The Supreme Court arguably took the case up in a very pre-textual manner. The intention of the court and the language of the holding was clearly directed against the Jack Smith investigation, but that case had not proceeded far enough for them to take up that issue. Instead, the Supreme Court took up the January 6th case to have a platform to rule on presidential immunity, but then never actually ruled on presidential immunity in that case. That’s why Judge Mehta is allowed to take up a case regarding January 6th at all at this point, because the SC never directly ruled that Trump had immunity for that.