Undersharer, my personal understanding of that Supreme Court ruling is that he has immunity from official LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL acts. I hope that this is how federal judges view it, too, when the time comes to prosecute.
Presidential immunity is revocable, folks. Under the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States, a former president has absolute immunity from prosecution for acts within the president’s exclusive constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Lower courts apply those categories when deciding whether a prosecution can proceed. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/the-presidential-immunity-decision-robert-delahunty-john-yoo/
To change that constitutional rule broadly, the clearest route is a constitutional amendment: it must be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, then ratified by three-fourths of the states. The Supreme Court could also revisit or overturn its own ruling in a future case.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that the president has the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Am I (are we) correct to realize that mastery of the LEGAL SYSTEM has been captured by the right wing also, as The Idiot Democrats have been 'playing dead' for 49 years????
No one is immune from election interference indictments, since the states run elections—and they can’t be pardoned for those, and official actions don’t include election interference. Right?!
Presidential immunity is revocable, folks. Under the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States, a former president has absolute immunity from prosecution for acts within the president’s exclusive constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Lower courts apply those categories when deciding whether a prosecution can proceed. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/the-presidential-immunity-decision-robert-delahunty-john-yoo/
To change that constitutional rule broadly, the clearest route is a constitutional amendment: it must be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, then ratified by three-fourths of the states. The Supreme Court could also revisit or overturn its own ruling in a future case.
He has always disliked California! No surprise there. The National Guard are still in Los Angeles. ICE has been very aggressive in California. He refused to have FEMA come in for California’s latest large, very destructive fire. We are “too woke” for him. He hates that “Californians drive around in those little electric cars, have windmills, have solar panels, have strict environmental laws” . . . etc., etc. No surprise that he is after California. Everybody has been predicting Feds will be in swing states during the elections. Every time I heard that, I said “and they will definitely be in California”. And they are and more are apparently coming.
They’re immune from jack shit. Bring on the indictments now.
Do you not know about the immunity rhe Supreme Court gave him?????
Means nothing. It’s for presidential duties.
You should google stuff before you pound the ????????
Undersharer, my personal understanding of that Supreme Court ruling is that he has immunity from official LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL acts. I hope that this is how federal judges view it, too, when the time comes to prosecute.
You should too.
Presidential immunity is revocable, folks. Under the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States, a former president has absolute immunity from prosecution for acts within the president’s exclusive constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Lower courts apply those categories when deciding whether a prosecution can proceed. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/the-presidential-immunity-decision-robert-delahunty-john-yoo/
To change that constitutional rule broadly, the clearest route is a constitutional amendment: it must be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, then ratified by three-fourths of the states. The Supreme Court could also revisit or overturn its own ruling in a future case.
cc: Todd Blanche
They’ll just find another loophole that our government doesn’t have the interest in blocking 🚫🙅♂️
Just impeach them!
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that the president has the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
I hope you’re right!!!
Trum will invoke some obscure law from 1790 that was meant to settle disputes between Indians and Quakers.
Am I (are we) correct to realize that mastery of the LEGAL SYSTEM has been captured by the right wing also, as The Idiot Democrats have been 'playing dead' for 49 years????
No one is immune from election interference indictments, since the states run elections—and they can’t be pardoned for those, and official actions don’t include election interference. Right?!
Ethical violations. Plus file complaint gor criminal interference. Plus refer for impeachment. Refer to bar association.
Presidential immunity is revocable, folks. Under the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States, a former president has absolute immunity from prosecution for acts within the president’s exclusive constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Lower courts apply those categories when deciding whether a prosecution can proceed. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/the-presidential-immunity-decision-robert-delahunty-john-yoo/
To change that constitutional rule broadly, the clearest route is a constitutional amendment: it must be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, then ratified by three-fourths of the states. The Supreme Court could also revisit or overturn its own ruling in a future case.
Isn't it illegal to tilt elections for personal gain? Can they rob banks? Steal cars?
He has always disliked California! No surprise there. The National Guard are still in Los Angeles. ICE has been very aggressive in California. He refused to have FEMA come in for California’s latest large, very destructive fire. We are “too woke” for him. He hates that “Californians drive around in those little electric cars, have windmills, have solar panels, have strict environmental laws” . . . etc., etc. No surprise that he is after California. Everybody has been predicting Feds will be in swing states during the elections. Every time I heard that, I said “and they will definitely be in California”. And they are and more are apparently coming.
Can't you file ethical claims. Unethical. Crimes misdemeanors.
Trump may be but not TODDY...the SCOTUS claim does not cover him! Dream on
Oh. And the felon said that nobody knows what the word “incumbent”means.
I read again. Fabulous. Maybe send to women's republican clubs.
The sup ct of Alaska ruled. Why isnt ymthat final?
Very informative..thank you