You guys are probably aware of this news by now:

Trump has some immunity from prosecution, Supreme Court rules

The US Supreme Court has said Donald Trump and other former presidents are partially immune from criminal prosecution, in a major legal victory for the Republican White House candidate.

The 6-3 ruling did not outright dismiss an indictment that charges Trump with plotting to overturn the 2020 election, but it did strip away key elements of the case against him.

The justices found that a president has immunity for "official acts", but is not immune for "unofficial acts", and referred the matter back to a trial judge.

The three liberal justices dissented strongly, expressing “fear for our democracy”.

“The President is now a king above the law,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The decision makes it less likely that the Republican candidate will stand trial in the case before he challenges Democratic President Joe Biden in November's White House election.

It is the first time since the nation's founding that the Supreme Court has declared former presidents can be shielded from criminal charges.

Trump is the first president ever to be criminally prosecuted, as Chief Justice John Roberts noted while delivering Monday's opinion.

"Big win for our constitution and democracy," wrote Trump in an all-capital letters post on his social media platform Truth Social.

In a fiery phone call with the media, deputy Biden campaign manager Quentin Fulks could be heard banging his fist on the table as he spoke.

"Immune, immune, immune. They just handed Donald Trump keys to a dictatorship," Mr Fulks said, pointing out that three of the justices had been appointed by Trump.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who filed the indictment, declined to comment.

The majority opinion by the highest court in the land tossed out a lower court opinion that had rejected Trump's claim of absolute immunity.

The justices found a president does enjoy absolute immunity for official conduct, but can still be prosecuted for private acts.

Justice Roberts wrote that a president's discussions with the Department of Justice are official acts of the presidency, and he or she is therefore “absolutely immune” from prosecution for such interactions.

The indictment alleges Trump pressured the law-enforcement agency to investigate claims - which were found to be unsubstantiated - that widespread voter fraud had affected the election result.

Justice Roberts wrote that a president's discussions with his vice-president are also official conduct, and Trump is therefore "at least presumptively immune” from allegations that he tried to pressure Mike Pence not to certify Mr Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

The indictment accuses Trump of inciting the US Capitol riot, citing his tweets and remarks he made outside the White House that day.

But the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Trump's speech and social media activity on 6 January 2021 were all official acts.

In another blow to the case, the justices ruled that Trump's private records - and those of his advisors - "may not be admitted as evidence at trial".

The opinion raised questions, too, about whether allegations that Trump pressured state officials to change their electoral votes in order to overturn his election defeat constituted unofficial acts, but ultimately left it to the lower court to decide.

"The parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct," said the opinion, raising doubts about the potential viability of the case once the official acts are stripped away.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor argued that the ruling would protect a president if he or she ordered US special forces to assassinate a political rival, organised a military coup to hold on to power, or took bribes in exchange for conferring a pardon.

Justice Jackson wrote in a separate dissent that the conservative majority’s ruling “breaks new and dangerous ground” and would “let down the guardrails of the law”.

But Justice Roberts wrote that the “tone of chilling doom” from the dissenters was “wholly disproportionate”.

His opinion said that immunity extends to the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official responsibilities, setting a higher bar for prosecution.

This ruling is “among the worst-case scenarios” for the special counsel, says Aziz Huq, a constitutional law expert at the University of Chicago.

“I think it will be important to see if [Jack] Smith can narrow the indictment by eliminating those facts that the Court has ranked as 'official',” he told the BBC.

"This is a major victory for Donald Trump," legal expert Mitchell Epner told the BBC.

He said the trial judge will now have to decide which charges can move forward, and Trump will be able again to appeal against her ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrrv8yg3nvo

Justices 'fear for democracy' in dissent on Trump immunity

Three justices have issued a blistering dissent to the landmark US Supreme Court opinion granting Donald Trump partial immunity from prosecution, warning that it will allow presidential power to be used "for evil ends".

The 6-3 historic decision effectively strips out key parts of an indictment against the former president for allegedly conspiring to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

Six conservative-leaning justices signed the majority opinion, but the three liberals dissented.

Led by Sonia Sotomayor, they expressed "fear for our democracy".

"Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?" Justice Sotomayor wrote. "Immune."

"Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

"Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done," Justice Sotomayor wrote. "In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."

She was joined in her dissent by the court's two other liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.

Justice Jackson wrote in a separate dissent that the majority's ruling "breaks new and dangerous ground" by "discarding" the nation's long-held principle that no-one is above the law.

"That core principle has long prevented our Nation from devolving into despotism," she said.

Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority had invented a notion of absolute immunity for a president performing "official acts", even though it has at times been assumed that presidents could be prosecuted for things they did while in office.

She cited Richard Nixon getting pardoned by the president who succeeded him, Gerald Ford, for using his official powers to obstruct an investigation into the Watergate burglary - the scandal that eventually led to Mr Nixon's resignation.

Those involved in the case were under the presumption that Mr Nixon did not have immunity and could be prosecuted after leaving office, Justice Sotomayor wrote.

Her opinion went much further back in history as well. She quoted US Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, who wrote that former presidents would be "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law".

But the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that the dissenters "strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today".

He wrote that the liberal justices were "fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals" and dismissed their legal reasoning as weak.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c035zqe7lgro

There were even these arguments:

They're talking about the presidential immunity case where Trump is arguing presidents can't be charged with crimes they commit while in office. And they're absolutely wrong. Trump can't do that...because the case will be decided on Monday. Then Trump can kill Bob Iger.

https://old.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/1dquswv/can_trump_order_disney_to_have_bob_iger_fired_and/laqsa9y/

Trump has argued and scotus has entertained that presidents cannot be prosecuted for crimes they commit, including murder

https://old.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/1dquswv/can_trump_order_disney_to_have_bob_iger_fired_and/laqsf96/

And after the recent presidential debate, almost everyone seems to think that Trump is 100% guaranteed to become the president again and with Trump now having presidential immunity for any official acts, do you think he will order Bob Iger to get fired and be replaced with Ike Perlmutter or Nelson Peltz as Disney CEO and have the entire board members replaced with people like Ike Perlmutter, Nelson Peltz, Bill Ackman, Elon Musk, Ben Shapiro, Ethan Van Sciver, Tucker Carlson, Harvey Weinstein (somehow), James O'Keefe, Andrew Tate, Steve Bannon, and so on with Kevin Feige getting replaced with Ethan Van Sciver, Pete Docter getting replaced with John Kricfalusi, Jennifer Lee getting replaced with Chris Savino, and Kathleen Kennedy getting replaced with Ben Shapiro under Trump's executive order? Why or why not?

P.S. I certainly hope that these are my paranoia, but it's just that Perlmutter, Peltz, Musk, and so on are major Trump supporters - and they all have personal vendetta against Disney.