WRONG and proof that you have no clue how any of this works.
“The dissent ignores parts of the majority opinion that expressly refute such claims. For example, the majority discussed how prosecutors could present evidence in a bribery case that a president “allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.” The prosecution can overcome the presumption of immunity with such evidence.
Indeed, the majority stated that Trump’s alleged “private scheme with private actors” to create alternative slates of electors “cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular presidential function.” If that is established by the trial court, then Trump’s actions would not be protected by any sort of immunity.
In defining official functions, the Court referenced constitutional and statutory authority. It also recognized that a president must be able to speak to the public on matters of public interest, as Trump did on Jan. 6, 2021. While some of us believe that Trump’s speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment, the justices suggested that it was also protected as a matter of immunity.
That is a far cry from a green light for death squads. The idea that Trump could not order a slate of fake electors but could order a slew of political assassinations finds little support in the actual opinion.”
“I didn’t expect such a broad definition of absolute immunity for a president for criminal acts,” said Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation’s preeminent constitutional scholars. “While the court leaves many issues unresolved, it is a dramatic and stunning affirmation of broad, absolute immunity for a president.”
Berkeley political scientist Terri Bimes, a scholar in the history and operation of the U.S. presidency, called the court’s ruling “dangerous.”
“The decision seems to permit the president to use the power of the office to commit acts that are illegal, that are criminal,” Bimes said. “The fact that these actions are being taken in the name of the presidency, that they’re official acts, makes them immune from prosecution. That is really problematic.”
This term was the most significant in memory because, in Trump v. United States, [the Court] hard-wired the imperial presidency by granting what in practice is close to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to presidents who wield their power corruptly and self-servingly;
Or how about I quote the decision itself?
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.
It’s not impossible for him to be prosecuted, but the legal barrier is sky high and in most cases not practical. Acknowledge it.
Centrism distilled. The only things you have to back up the excuses you call arguments are ridicule, baseless accusations, gaslighting and abuse. Like I said, intellectually bankrupt.
Your hypocrisy is impressive. What’s more impressive is your inability to even notice it. It reminds me a lot of MAGA. You seem to share a lot of similarities.
WRONG and proof that you have no clue how any of this works.
“The dissent ignores parts of the majority opinion that expressly refute such claims. For example, the majority discussed how prosecutors could present evidence in a bribery case that a president “allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.” The prosecution can overcome the presumption of immunity with such evidence.
Indeed, the majority stated that Trump’s alleged “private scheme with private actors” to create alternative slates of electors “cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular presidential function.” If that is established by the trial court, then Trump’s actions would not be protected by any sort of immunity.
In defining official functions, the Court referenced constitutional and statutory authority. It also recognized that a president must be able to speak to the public on matters of public interest, as Trump did on Jan. 6, 2021. While some of us believe that Trump’s speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment, the justices suggested that it was also protected as a matter of immunity.
That is a far cry from a green light for death squads. The idea that Trump could not order a slate of fake electors but could order a slew of political assassinations finds little support in the actual opinion.”
There’s disagreement among scholars.
It’s provenly NOT absolute immunity. Stop with the extremism. It’s dangerous. Yes, but he cannot make goon squads to go murderizing people at will.
Stop with the sensationalism. It only dilutes the water.
Okay, Berkley won’t do it for you, how about Harvard Law?
Or how about I quote the decision itself?
It’s not impossible for him to be prosecuted, but the legal barrier is sky high and in most cases not practical. Acknowledge it.
He cannot murder people or have them murdered and not face consequences.
I’m not discussing this with you any further. Your feelings are entirely irrelevant.
My feelings have never been relevant. The facts are the facts, pound sand.
Your interlocutor brought sources. You brought gaslighting and personal attacks and frankly lies.
The pro-genocide wing of the Democratic Party is intellectually bankrupt in addition to being morally bankrupt.
pRo gEnoCiDe!
This is why I don’t take you seriously.
Centrism distilled. The only things you have to back up the excuses you call arguments are ridicule, baseless accusations, gaslighting and abuse. Like I said, intellectually bankrupt.
Your hypocrisy is impressive. What’s more impressive is your inability to even notice it. It reminds me a lot of MAGA. You seem to share a lot of similarities.