“May have just legalized murder by one individual”: Experts alarmed at “stunning” SCOTUS ruling - eviltoast
  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Good point, and well made. The immunity is explicitly for POTUS. If those carrying out the act are aware they are committing a crime they could be charged accordingly.

    It unfortunately may change a lot for Trump, depending on what judges rule to be “official acts” of his Presidency. Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.

    • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Except the President has pardon power.

      Soooo, henchmen also have absolute immunity if the president is fully aware that what he has ordered is illegal.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Biden could also grant immunity to others in carrying out his potential illegal actions, like trump did. If you want to fanfiction this scenario

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.

      How? The documents case is about stuff he did after he left office. Things he does after he is no longer President definitionally cannot be official acts of his Presidency.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        There is no duration limit to the immunity ruling. If she deems the ownership of documents an official act, she could rule that immunity covers all acts related to the documents until their return.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t understand what you mean. Even if he believed he had the right to retain the documents, he wasn’t willfully improperly keeping the documents or obstructing their retrieval until after he was out of office - you’d basically just have to not charge him regarding any documents he handed over the first time, because after the first time handing over documents he definitely knew better and definitely wasn’t in office.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Oh, I agree that it should be considered a crime. I’m just suggesting a way Cannon may leverage this in Trumps favor.

            Since there’s no requirement that the President needs to be actively in office for immunity, if she ruled that his ownership of the documents was an “official act,” then any crime he may have committed involving the documents could be considered in service of said act.