Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
|
Obviously, an official act is anything he’s legally allowed to do.
If it sounds circular, that’s because it’s meant to be. His place-men on the Supreme Court have one job here, which is to slow down any threat Trump faces until after the election. Any prosecution relating to the day of the insurrection, which occurred while he was still president, will now be mired in appeal after appeal while the question of immunity is resolved.
---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
When you think about it there’s nothing really new or unexpected in the ruling. Of course Presidents have immunity as part of their official duties - as head of the armed forces they’re in charge of murderers, rapists and routinely carry out indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in other countries.
The principle has to be absolute or not at all. You can’t have every ambitious prosecutor out to make a name for themselves targeting a sitting President for obvious slam dunk crimes. America’s role as the global policeman, and perhaps largest criminal enterprise in the world as it seizes the assets it “liberates”, depends upon it.
|
Furthermore there’s no way they could rule that presidents are immune entirely. That could come back and bite them on the bum very quickly. Despite giving the appearance of being not the sharpest tool in the box*, Judge Alito isn’t irredeemably thick.
*What, that insurrectionist flag in my yard? Can’t say I noticed, my wife must have done that…