this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
143 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7163 readers
407 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Call me silly, but isn't this sort of good? I think they're trying to say "you're immune if you do stuff that presidents do, like be in charge of war, torture, etc, but if you're a normal criminal, you're still a criminal".

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Not really, in this case they are equating actions Trump took to overturn his election loss as official duties. It's definitely a messy part of the law, but if you bundle the actions taken to bring down a governmental system with those taken in the administration of that system you're probably only trying to help bring it down.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

No, they're saying if it was an official duty, he's immune. If he did something unofficial (as decided by lower courts), he's not immune. I don't know many details off the top of my head, but for example tweeting to the Proud Boys, could be considered unofficial. Or whatever. I'm not a law person.

He can still be prosecuted etc., but it's going to take time for lower courts to figure out how to handle it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The supreme court has already ruled Congress does (via the 14th amendment debacle). There is going to be a lot more impeachment hearings because if Congress doesn't like the president it will find every way to declare the presidential act non official and impeach.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)