Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Breaking News Trump Found Guilty of All 34 Counts In 'Hush Money' Trial | Update: Supreme Court Rules Trump Has ‘Absolute Immunity’ From Criminal Prosecution

What is a W for trump is that this pushes trial date past election so that if he wins he can pardon himself.

There is nothing saying he has full immunity to do whatever the hell he wants lol.
 
ChicagoFigure said:
The lower courts now get to decide which of his actions are not considered official. If they are not considered official, he may still be prosecuted. He's not just granted immunity from everything he's been accused of if found guilty.

Look I know I could be interpreting this wrong but I feel like one side is claiming a W they don't actually have for obvious reasons, and another side fear mongering for more "democracy is on the line"
Click to expand...
I know this goes back to your argument with her again but the supreme court just made it more real

There should be real fear for trump winning. Granted no president should have that kind of immunity it's not likely that Biden will do anything crazy and fucked up like trump would
 
This ruling plus the Chevron ruling basically made the Pres a real dictator. Now the FBI, DEA and other government office are no longer "federal" and now has no need for checks and balances. The pres can simply put one of his homies from the block as the lead of the fucking CIA if they wanted to
 
ChatGPT gave me a meaningless word salad

Official vs. Unofficial Acts of a Sitting President​

When it comes to the actions of a sitting president, the distinction between official and unofficial acts holds significant legal and constitutional implications.Official Acts:
  • Official acts of a sitting president are those carried out within the scope of their constitutional powers as outlined in Article II of the Constitution. These acts are typically related to the execution of their duties as the head of the executive branch and are granted immunity from civil liability. The Supreme Court has affirmed absolute immunity for official acts, providing protection from civil suits for damages arising from these acts

    .
  • The immunity from civil liability for official acts extends to actions within the "outer perimeter" of the president's duties, ensuring that the president can perform their duties effectively without fear of personal liability

    .
Unofficial Acts:
  • Unofficial acts refer to actions taken by the president that fall outside the scope of their official duties. These acts are not immune from civil liability, and the president can be subject to judicial review and potential legal consequences for such actions

    .
  • It is important to note that the distinction between official and unofficial acts can be complex and may have legal implications in cases involving criminal prosecution or civil suits.
In summary, the distinction between official and unofficial acts of a sitting president is crucial in determining the extent of immunity and legal accountability for their actions. While official acts are generally shielded from civil liability, unofficial acts are subject to judicial review and potential legal consequences.
 
Rubato said:
ChatGPT gave me a meaningless word salad

Official vs. Unofficial Acts of a Sitting President​

When it comes to the actions of a sitting president, the distinction between official and unofficial acts holds significant legal and constitutional implications.Official Acts:
  • Official acts of a sitting president are those carried out within the scope of their constitutional powers as outlined in Article II of the Constitution. These acts are typically related to the execution of their duties as the head of the executive branch and are granted immunity from civil liability. The Supreme Court has affirmed absolute immunity for official acts, providing protection from civil suits for damages arising from these acts

    .
  • The immunity from civil liability for official acts extends to actions within the "outer perimeter" of the president's duties, ensuring that the president can perform their duties effectively without fear of personal liability

    .
Unofficial Acts:
  • Unofficial acts refer to actions taken by the president that fall outside the scope of their official duties. These acts are not immune from civil liability, and the president can be subject to judicial review and potential legal consequences for such actions

    .
  • It is important to note that the distinction between official and unofficial acts can be complex and may have legal implications in cases involving criminal prosecution or civil suits.
In summary, the distinction between official and unofficial acts of a sitting president is crucial in determining the extent of immunity and legal accountability for their actions. While official acts are generally shielded from civil liability, unofficial acts are subject to judicial review and potential legal consequences.
Click to expand...
Basically a president must act within their presidential duties as outlined in article 2 of the Constitution. To do otherwise would be unconstitutional and therefore would be outside the scope of immunity.

So no you can't assassinate your political opponent.
 
ChicagoFigure said:
Basically a president must act within their presidential duties as outlined in article 2 of the Constitution. To do otherwise would be unconstitutional and therefore would be outside the scope of immunity.

So no you can't assassinate your political opponent.
Click to expand...
You can if you can make an assessment that your opponent is a threat to national security as part of your duties as commander in chief of the military
 
Rubato said:
You can if you can make an assessment that your opponent is a threat to national security as part of your duties as commander in chief of the military
Click to expand...
He would still have to convince the court that his actions were reasonable. He doesn't have unilateral power to get away with it bc he said so and no one does anything about it.

Presidents can still be impeached and held accountable with this ruling.
 
ChicagoFigure said:
He would still have to convince the court that his actions were reasonable. He doesn't have unilateral power to get away with it bc he said so and no one does anything about it.

Presidents can still be impeached and held accountable with this ruling.
Click to expand...
Yeah but I doubt that would go anywhere

I’m thinking of the exact scenario we faced 4 years ago when one side had everyone convinced Trump was a Russian asset. If Biden had been president at the time and had ordered a kill I doubt the courts would have done much at the end of the day.
 
Rubato said:
Yeah but I doubt that would go anywhere

I’m thinking of the exact scenario we faced 4 years ago when one side had everyone convinced Trump was a Russian asset. If they had ordered a kill I doubt the courts would have done much at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
I mean that could've been true even without this ruling lol

That's my point is it really didn't change much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top