The court found that Trump is entitled to immunity from prosecution for "official" acts, but not "unofficial" ones, and ordered lower courts to decide which acts are which.
So, would official acts as president be legal by definition? Would there be such a thing as an official act as president that may otherwise be criminal?
And how does the ruling protect against treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (specifically, the past part)? How is this ruling not in direct contrast to the constitution?
The job of President throughout the 20th century has involved committing crimes. If they gave that away, then all of these ghouls could potentially be prosecuted.
In the future, the former President could go to jail for the next version of Iran-Contra... and we couldn't possibly allow that to happen.
So, would official acts as president be legal by definition? Would there be such a thing as an official act as president that may otherwise be criminal?
And how does the ruling protect against treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (specifically, the past part)? How is this ruling not in direct contrast to the constitution?
yes, and further that any exercise of constitutional authority is an official act.
in the prosecutable sense? no. the president is no longer bound by congressional authority.
courts won't do shit about it, congress will have to (lmao)
the constitution is toilet paper and always has been. scotus just wiped some diarrhea with it.
The job of President throughout the 20th century has involved committing crimes. If they gave that away, then all of these ghouls could potentially be prosecuted.
In the future, the former President could go to jail for the next version of Iran-Contra... and we couldn't possibly allow that to happen.