• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    46
    ·
    2 days ago

    The immunity the court is talking about means they can’t be charged with murder for sending troops to war. Such an act is not “above the law”. The law specifically authorizes the president to perform such an act.

    The legal remedy for a president who improperly sending troops to war is impeachment, not a criminal charge.

    The president’s immunity extends only to those acts that he is specifically authorized by law to perform. Those are “official” acts. The acts that Trump is accused of are well outside the scope of his former office. The trial court is going to burn his ass. SCOTUS didn’t save him.

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      2 days ago

      Even the dissenting supreme court justices stated the opposite of what you’re spinning.

      No.

      • Irremarkable@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Oh they’re well aware that they’re blatantly lying. Chuds don’t argue in good faith.

    • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m not sure they defined what an official act is yet. So I assume that will be challenged by Trump in the lower courts and make it’s way up to the scouts. And based on this season’s decisions, I would assume they find in favor of Trump.