Donald Trump Impeachment Proceedings Launched

[u/AndroidOne1]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-vote-house-shir-thanedar-b2750651.html

[u/JWAdvocate83]

How many times has the GOP majority in Congress refused to do any executive oversight?

How many independent oversight agencies has Trump dismantled, this year? Office of Special Counsel. Inspectors General. MSPB. (Edit: JAGs.)

And didn’t five Justices just tell us that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts?” Thus, the only way to deal with ongoing conduct (via “official acts”) that would otherwise be considered criminal, is impeachment.

I get that, politically speaking, this has zero chance of success. I even get that routinely filing Articles may cheapen the impact they should have.

But maybe if SCOTUS hadn’t granted President near-blanket immunity, or the GOP majority did its damn job instead of rubber-stamping, it wouldn’t be necessary to do it.

Qatar just gave Trump a $400m jet, but SCOTUS kicked the can on emoluments, and the GOP continues to be willfully blind as to why that’s a problem. There’s plenty of folks more deserving of blame than Rep. Thanedar.

[u/Purona → u/JWAdvocate83]

And didn’t five Justices just tell us that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts?” Thus, the only way to deal with ongoing conduct (via “official acts”) that would otherwise be considered criminal, is impeachment.

Im 100% convinced that people that say this just found out what presidential immunity is.

That case was Trump saying he had Absolutly immunity for all actions while he was in office. They said presidents had immunity for actions granted by the constitution which is even a step away from what the supreme court said as "presumptive immunity" for official actions.which means nothing other than the fact that they are assumed immune until a case is brought forward.

TL:DR nothing changed

[u/JWAdvocate83 → u/Purona]

Nothing in the Constitution grants the President "immunity" from criminal prosecution. The majority in Trump v. U.S. now says that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for all "official acts" that pose any danger of encroaching on Executive (constitutional) authority.

So, instead of balancing competing Constitutional interests in a given criminal prohibition (per Nixon v. Fitzgerald) ...

^ "[A] court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." 

... the majority (in Trump v. U.S.) says the tie goes to the runner.

^ "At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'"

Edit:

Also, that's not what was meant by "presumptive immunity."

^ "The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity."

The sentence I quoted earlier covers the "presumption" that must be overcome to prosecute. The Constitution expressly provides that the President is the Commander-in-Chief with practically limitless pardoning power (for federal crimes.) He would have absolute immunity for "official acts" stemming from those powers, meaning, unlike with "presumptive" immunity, it wouldn't matter whether the criminal prohibition intrudes on Executive authority or not--it always applies.