I wonder why you’d prefer a partisan court?

Before prosecuting a president you have always had to stop and determine if what was done was in an official capacity or an unofficial capacity. It’s been like that for 200 years. That’s why you can’t charge bush 1, bush 2, or Obama with war crimes. Furthermore, the court made their stance on Trump quite clear. They did not dismiss any of his cases. If they were in his pocket, and he had this absolute immunity as you claim, all cases would be dropped.

Folks, it’s quite clear what the president can and cannot do. He can pardon, appoint, dismiss, and instruct the military to take actions and has full immunity to do so. Which of course the president must have full immunity for those actions. If you or I send a missle to kill people we would get charged. The president would not.

Moreover, presumptive immunity leaves the door wide open. The ruling says that any action taken with presumptive immunity may be challenged and that the burden is on the government to show that the action was not within the presidents duties, and failed to uphold the constitutional oath taken. If the president blatantly breaks the law that burden of proof would be childish to gather. The president is not above the law, and never was.

In 1982 SCOTUS made a decision on this:

“We hold that the petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.”

The media, the Democrats, but I repeat myself, have all been lying to you. This has always been the case. Nothing has changed.

The president already had immunity before this ruling. You or I cannot send a missle to Iran to kill people. The president can. It’s been like this for 200 years. It was like this when Trump was president. The president didn’t gain any magic law dodging powers. They aren’t suddenly a genie that can do whatever they want.

Falsifying business records is not election fraud is the eyes of the law.

None of the judges on either side are making this absurd claim because it’s in the constitution article 2 section 3 and has been settled for 200 years. The president has to follow the law.

The discretion of official duty is left up to the trails court, not the supreme court. It’s literally in the ruling.

The president has always had immunity. This changes nothing.

If I order someone to be murdered in another country I can be prosecuted. If the president does it they cannot be prosecuted (if, obviously, it was for the protection of the United States). There is your example. SCOTUS didn’t give the president anything. The president already had it. Because SCOTUS doesn’t make law.

Have a nice day / night.

Absolutely not. You’re insane, you wouldn’t consider anything I’d say.

That’s because your fantastical scenario is exactly that, fantasy. You do not understand whatsoever the implications of the ruling because you cannot grasp the duty of the president, checks and balances, and the rule of law. Did they stop teaching civics in school?7

Because they are protecting our republic. A president shouldn’t fear being prosecuted by someone for their official acts when they are out of office, such as a political rival.

And no, something illegal cannot be official.

The president can’t kill anyone who opposes him. The president is subject to the laws just like anyone else. Breaking the law is not part of his official duty. Assassinating someone the president doesn’t like is against the law.

Assassinating an enemy of the United States is a different story. The president cannot claim a citizen of the United States with no criminal activity or record against the United States is an enemy. Furthermore, the military cannot use force on citizens of the United States. The FBI can, and the president doesn’t control the FBI the judicial branch does.

Aren’t checks and balances fun?!

The best example is first responders. They have immunity doing their duty. They cannot hesitate to perform their duty - such as giving life saving services - if they fear they are unsuccessful and are sued / thrown in prison. If they break the law though on duty it was never their duty to break the law and are therefore not immune. Take CPR. They might perform CPR and injure the person they are working over, or they might not save them. The family of that person cannot sue them, nor can a court convict them if they accidentally make things worse.

Same thing with the president. The president can’t break the law and say, “whoops, just doing my official duty”. It doesn’t work like that.

Is Saddam Hussein in the room with us now?

No, again, you’ve misunderstood. Breaking the law is not within the duties of the president.

That’s extremely doubtful, as Trump was never convicted for something that would label him as an enemy of the United States.

deleted by creator

The president acts through people. Asking the military to murder Americans on American soil is the easy slam dunk straight to pound me in the ass federal prison for life idea you’ve ever come up with.

No, the president has immunity during official duties much like a first responder. If they break the law that isn’t an official duty.

Nope. That is not within the duties of the president. Declaring something official doesn’t make it official.

It is a fundamental misunderstanding and mistake to believe that people don’t vote the way you want them too is because they are less intelligent than you.