[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  John Basham [@JohnBasham](/creator/twitter/JohnBasham) on x 99.1K followers Created: 2025-07-23 20:11:44 UTC ANALYSIS: Grok Says It Would Be Nearly Impossible To Prosecute @BarackObama Over The Treasonous Actions He Took Against @POTUS Trump Using The Intel Agencies & Federal Law Enforcement. GROK- Yes, it is theoretically possible to indict and convict a former president on treason charges for actions taken while in office, but the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. United States (2024) makes it exceedingly difficult—and likely impossible—in practice for the specific scenario described, where the actions involve knowingly directing government intelligence agencies and law enforcement to obstruct or remove an incoming president on false grounds. This is because such conduct would almost certainly be classified as "official acts" entitled to absolute or presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution, shielding the former president from liability. Below, I'll break this down step by step, including the ruling's framework, its application to treason, and the scenario's fit. ### Overview of the Supreme Court's Presidential Immunity Ruling (Trump v. United States) In a 6-3 decision, the Court established a three-tier framework for presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for acts taken while in office: - **Absolute Immunity**: Applies to "core constitutional powers," such as pardons, foreign affairs recognition, or directing the Justice Department (DOJ) in its prosecutorial functions. These acts cannot be prosecuted, and evidence from them cannot be used in any criminal case. - **Presumptive Immunity**: Applies to other "official acts" within the "outer perimeter" of presidential responsibilities. Prosecution is barred unless the government proves it poses no "dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." This presumption is difficult to rebut, as the Court emphasized protecting executive independence. - **No Immunity**: Applies only to "unofficial acts" (private conduct unrelated to presidential duties). These can be fully prosecuted. The ruling applies to former presidents and covers federal crimes, including treason. It does not create exceptions based on the severity of the offense; immunity turns on whether the underlying conduct was official or unofficial, not the crime charged. Critics argued this could immunize acts like treason or bribery if official, but the majority rejected that, focusing on structural separation of powers. Lower courts must now classify acts on a case-by-case basis, but the ruling tilts heavily toward immunity for executive-branch interactions. (1/2) XXX engagements  **Related Topics** [united states](/topic/united-states) [supreme](/topic/supreme) [agencies](/topic/agencies) [donald trump](/topic/donald-trump) [potus](/topic/potus) [Post Link](https://x.com/JohnBasham/status/1948113823157694760)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
John Basham @JohnBasham on x 99.1K followers
Created: 2025-07-23 20:11:44 UTC
ANALYSIS: Grok Says It Would Be Nearly Impossible To Prosecute @BarackObama Over The Treasonous Actions He Took Against @POTUS Trump Using The Intel Agencies & Federal Law Enforcement. GROK- Yes, it is theoretically possible to indict and convict a former president on treason charges for actions taken while in office, but the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. United States (2024) makes it exceedingly difficult—and likely impossible—in practice for the specific scenario described, where the actions involve knowingly directing government intelligence agencies and law enforcement to obstruct or remove an incoming president on false grounds. This is because such conduct would almost certainly be classified as "official acts" entitled to absolute or presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution, shielding the former president from liability. Below, I'll break this down step by step, including the ruling's framework, its application to treason, and the scenario's fit. ### Overview of the Supreme Court's Presidential Immunity Ruling (Trump v. United States) In a 6-3 decision, the Court established a three-tier framework for presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for acts taken while in office: - Absolute Immunity: Applies to "core constitutional powers," such as pardons, foreign affairs recognition, or directing the Justice Department (DOJ) in its prosecutorial functions. These acts cannot be prosecuted, and evidence from them cannot be used in any criminal case. - Presumptive Immunity: Applies to other "official acts" within the "outer perimeter" of presidential responsibilities. Prosecution is barred unless the government proves it poses no "dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." This presumption is difficult to rebut, as the Court emphasized protecting executive independence. - No Immunity: Applies only to "unofficial acts" (private conduct unrelated to presidential duties). These can be fully prosecuted. The ruling applies to former presidents and covers federal crimes, including treason. It does not create exceptions based on the severity of the offense; immunity turns on whether the underlying conduct was official or unofficial, not the crime charged. Critics argued this could immunize acts like treason or bribery if official, but the majority rejected that, focusing on structural separation of powers. Lower courts must now classify acts on a case-by-case basis, but the ruling tilts heavily toward immunity for executive-branch interactions. (1/2)
XXX engagements
Related Topics united states supreme agencies donald trump potus
/post/tweet::1948113823157694760