So Court ruling on Immunity?

[DvlDog4WVU]

Who defines official and unofficial? In retrospect, would this ruling cover Nixon’s actions in the Watergate coverup? The refusal to turn over the tapes? The editing of the tapes?

This is about the most important position in our government and shouldn’t be vague.

I would imagine the Hatch Act is the line of demarcation.

Nixon’s stuff was for his reelection. Call that the left side of the Hatch Act. I would put J6 on that side as well, GA case, and that sham in NY. Those are all unofficial acts as they’re not in furtherance of the office but the campaign. Biden’s DOJ crossing the line the way it has, would also be on that side.

Conversely, on the right side of the Hatch Act, Obama killing US citizens with drone strikes without due process is an official act. Invading Iraq on faulty intel by Bush, an official act, though, it’s seemingly lost conveniently I think, that Congress voted in favor of that. The records case against Trump likely falls into this side.

I don’t personally think it’s that complicated, it’s just being made to seem that way by the pearl clutchers in an attempt to shift the narrative away from Ol Pawpaw Biden. The crazy left took a bunch of losses this week by SCOTUS to the benefit of Democracy, despite what they believe.

 

[SoCo]

Ok, you can fill this thread up with more tweets if you like, but the Court's ruling is very vague and confusing. Excerpt:

Roberts argued that “the president is not above the law,” writing that “the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official.”

So who defines "official" and "unofficial" acts? Are we at the point where this ruling is like the Court's ruling on pornography and art in which "you'll know it when you see it"?

The courts. It is not that difficult.

Sovereign immunity has been around for centuries yet the whackos think yesterdays decision is groundbreaking

 

[MountaineerWV]

I would imagine the Hatch Act is the line of demarcation.

Nixon’s stuff was for his reelection. Call that the left side of the Hatch Act. I would put J6 on that side as well, GA case, and that sham in NY. Those are all unofficial acts as they’re not in furtherance of the office but the campaign. Biden’s DOJ crossing the line the way it has, would also be on that side.

Conversely, on the right side of the Hatch Act, Obama killing US citizens with drone strikes without due process is an official act. Invading Iraq on faulty intel by Bush, an official act, though, it’s seemingly lost conveniently I think, that Congress voted in favor of that. The records case against Trump likely falls into this side.

I don’t personally think it’s that complicated, it’s just being made to seem that way by the pearl clutchers in an attempt to shift the narrative away from Ol Pawpaw Biden. The crazy left took a bunch of losses this week by SCOTUS to the benefit of Democracy, despite what they believe.

I don't know what is being said about it by either side. I don't sit and watch the national news nor do I get on social media. My questions simply come from reading what the Justices said and my own attempt at trying to understand where the line between official and unofficial is drawn.

 

[dave]

Who defines official and unofficial? In retrospect, would this ruling cover Nixon’s actions in the Watergate coverup? The refusal to turn over the tapes? The editing of the tapes?

This is about the most important position in our government and shouldn’t be vague.

The Constitution lays out the powers of each branch of government. The Judicial and Legislative branches should police the executive as empowered by the constitution.

 

[dave]

I would imagine the Hatch Act is the line of demarcation.

Nixon’s stuff was for his reelection. Call that the left side of the Hatch Act. I would put J6 on that side as well, GA case, and that sham in NY. Those are all unofficial acts as they’re not in furtherance of the office but the campaign. Biden’s DOJ crossing the line the way it has, would also be on that side.

Conversely, on the right side of the Hatch Act, Obama killing US citizens with drone strikes without due process is an official act. Invading Iraq on faulty intel by Bush, an official act, though, it’s seemingly lost conveniently I think, that Congress voted in favor of that. The records case against Trump likely falls into this side.

I don’t personally think it’s that complicated, it’s just being made to seem that way by the pearl clutchers in an attempt to shift the narrative away from Ol Pawpaw Biden. The crazy left took a bunch of losses this week by SCOTUS to the benefit of Democracy, despite what they believe.

The records cases is conveniently not being explained by the media. Trump did exactly what he was told to do by the administration of the records act and then charged for keeping records he was told to keep.

 

[ThePunish-EER]

The records cases is conveniently not being explained by the media. Trump did exactly what he was told to do by the administration of the records act and then charged for keeping records he was told to keep.

Let’s all stop pretending the msm is useful to Americans. It’s essentially state news posing as independently owned and unbiased. I’ve turned them ALL off.

 

[Shirley Knott]

Help me out. Their ruling, what does it actually mean? Hypothetical situation:

POTUS considers his rival and political party to be a threat to national security. He orders him/her to be murdered. So the political rival is arrested and executed. Would that be covered? We've had presidents give the approval to have other nation's leaders "taken out", so I was wondering about this situation.

Leave it to a liberal to come up with this scenario...

 

[MountaineerWV]

The Constitution lays out the powers of each branch of government. The Judicial and Legislative branches should police the executive as empowered by the constitution.

It also lays out "implied" powers of the offices.

 

[atlkvb]

Help me out. Their ruling, what does it actually mean? Hypothetical situation:

POTUS considers his rival and political party to be a threat to national security. He orders him/her to be murdered. So the political rival is arrested and executed. Would that be covered? We've had presidents give the approval to have other nation's leaders "taken out", so I was wondering about this situation.

Having your chief political opponent(s) "murdered" isn't within the official duties of a sitting President. (neither is illegally spying on their chief political opposition)

 

[atlkvb]

Ok.....stop counting your hocus-pocus currency and understand what my point was with that example. For anyone to take that to be a literal example, well, that shows your ability to analyze hypotheticals.

Go back to 9th grade and study up on civics, especially implied powers and the elastic clause.

Show us where under the "implied powers" or "elastic" clauses of the President's Constitutional responsibilities he can arrange for the murder of his political opposition?

 

[MountaineerWV]

Show us where under the "implied powers" or "elastic" clauses of the President's Constitutional responsibilities he can arrange for the murder of his political opposition?

First, if you believed that literally, then you are a "maroon".

Second, how long before you begin these statements again??????

I'm not posting you anymore either, you nauseate me.

Now I'm going to ask you once again to please stop posting me. Our conversations go nowhere. We're both stubborn and we both think we're right and I'm on the Right and stubborn and you're on the Left and just as stubborn so we're never going to see eye to eye on anything. It's best to just leave it at that because I really don't like you. You're an inveterate liar as well as wrong in your arguments so what's the point engaging you?

Just leave me alone and I promise I'll return the favor.

 

[atlkvb]

First, if you believed that literally, then you are a "maroon".

Second, how long before you begin these statements again??????

Good call. My first instinct after reading your mindless posts about "implied" duties for a President was that I was wasting my time even addressing such sophistry. Thank you for confirming my instincts.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Good call. My first instinct after reading your mindless posts about "implied" duties for a President was that I was wasting my time even addressing such sophistry. Thank you for confirming my instincts.

Yet, you keep replying.

 

[atlkvb]

I would imagine the Hatch Act is the line of demarcation.

Nixon’s stuff was for his reelection. Call that the left side of the Hatch Act. I would put J6 on that side as well, GA case, and that sham in NY. Those are all unofficial acts as they’re not in furtherance of the office but the campaign. Biden’s DOJ crossing the line the way it has, would also be on that side.

Conversely, on the right side of the Hatch Act, Obama killing US citizens with drone strikes without due process is an official act. Invading Iraq on faulty intel by Bush, an official act, though, it’s seemingly lost conveniently I think, that Congress voted in favor of that. The records case against Trump likely falls into this side.

I don’t personally think it’s that complicated, it’s just being made to seem that way by the pearl clutchers in an attempt to shift the narrative away from Ol Pawpaw Biden. The crazy left took a bunch of losses this week by SCOTUS to the benefit of Democracy, despite what they believe.

Isn’t it amusing how the Left at almost every opportunity either ignores or seeks to get around the Constitution, yet now all of a sudden they're so concerned about a President not following it exactly as it's written?

Biden was told he had no Constitutional authority to unilaterally forgive student loan debt, but he ignored the Constitution and did it anyway. Any Leftists carping about that?

They're so phony they can't even pretend anymore they're for real. 😏

 

[Shirley Knott]

It also lays out "implied" powers of the offices.

I don't think there is any provision where a liberal president is free to order the murder of a political opponent even if that opponent happens to be Donald Trump...

 

[Mntneer]

Who defines official and unofficial? In retrospect, would this ruling cover Nixon’s actions in the Watergate coverup? The refusal to turn over the tapes? The editing of the tapes?

This is about the most important position in our government and shouldn’t be vague.

The courts and prosecutors would have to prove that an act was in an unofficial capacity.

President's, actually even members of the Senate and House, already have immunity for work they do on behalf of the country. This ruling doesn't change that. This ruling simply makes it a responsibility of prosecution show that the act was not official.

 

[MountaineerWV]

The courts and prosecutors would have to prove that an act was in an unofficial capacity.

President's, actually even members of the Senate and House, already have immunity for work they do on behalf of the country. This ruling doesn't change that. This ruling simply makes it a responsibility of prosecution show that the act was not official.

I know they did/do. But we now will need a "trial" in order to have a "trial".

 

[Gunny46]

I think they’re all bullshit, but, none of them would fall within official acts.

Some of the evidence in the NY case falls under it so that case needs tossed out. They would need to start over at a minimum.

 

[roadtrasheer]

I know they did/do. But we now will need a "trial" in order to have a "trial".

Don't see a problem with that .

 

[dave]

I know they did/do. But we now will need a "trial" in order to have a "trial".

If they didn't rush to get to trial faster than any other case on any docket in the state they could have avoided this. It was always a show trial intended to harm Trump politically.

 

[atlkvb]

It was always a show trial intended to harm Trump politically.

This. Nothing more to say.