Does it? I see one example that isn't violent.
Akuden
joined 2 months ago
Incorrect. Breaking the law is never an official act of the office, and therefore, cannot be protected.
I wonder, what do you think the ruling changed? What can the president do now that the president wasn't able to do before?
Yes, because it doesn't fall within the powers granted to the president via the constitution. He cannot sexually harass her. He cannot kill her. He cannot take bribes from her. So on and so forth.
Funny how as soon as Democrats think they have some unlimited magic power all they can come up with is killing their political rivals.
No. The president could not personally kill their maid.
Falsifying business records is not election fraud is the eyes of the law.
None of the judges on either side are making this absurd claim because it's in the constitution article 2 section 3 and has been settled for 200 years. The president has to follow the law.
Trump was president for four years, enjoyed all of this immunity already, and not one politician was murdered. Pretty sure we'll be alright.
Says right in the ruling it's up to the trails court to determine what is official.
A president can't claim immunity. The president has always had immunity for acts that the constitution provides the office.
The president has inferred immunity for powers shared with Congress.
The president enjoys no immunity for acts as a private citizen.
These are important distinctions.
You or I cannot bomb another country. The president can.
You or I cannot kill a maid. The president cannot.
Only acts used with the power of the office are immune. You can't use presidential authority to sexually harass your staff. That's against the law.
The ruling didn't change anything, nor was anything given. SCOTUS doesn't create the law. We don't have a magical genie godking president all of a sudden.
The Constitution bestows the power upon the presidential office onto the president. Not SCOTUS.