BREAKING: In Trump v. United States, US Supreme Court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for some things but not for others

Because Sotamayor(?) asked the asinine question if assassinating a political opponent would fall under immunity and Trump's dumbass lawyer said yes. The real answer is barring the political opponent engaging in actual military activities against the United States, it would be an illegal order, and the military officers would be obligated not to follow it. If they did and it was carried out then everyone in the chain of command would be subject to whatever criminal penalties for breaking the law. This decision doesn't protect the president from that.

and I'm not getting at all how people think assassinating a political opponent is on the menu.

It's because they're authoritarians that want blood.

Good EVENING I FRICKING HATE REDDITORS AHHHH

Prolly a bunch of fricking r-slurs on my regions groomercord right now sperging out r-slurred bullshit and I can't say anything or I'm banned

They said his conversations with the AG over voter fraud was protected because investigating crimes is under the presidential purview

R-slurred take

his conversations with the AG over voter fraud was protected because investigating crimes is under the presidential purview

National defense is under the presidential purview. Conversations with the CIA over directing them to assassinate a threat to US national security are protected.

there is already precedent set by so missiles away

We're so worried about Trump destroying democracy that we want Biden to destroy democracy in order to stop Trump from destroying democracy

...I need a Xanax

I have no idea what this means in practical terms for the cases currently in progress.

@pizzashill can you explain for us?

!accelerationists

rare unprecedented a good reddit comment

do you think these people will ever realize that the DNC wants this guy opposite them because it means dumb people like them wont ask for someone who isnt a geriatric to run?

Droning US citizens?

God forbid! But the precedent goes back even farther. Did you know Truman let the Air Force bomb Japan even though Tokyo Rose was there??? What if she got hurt?

How cucked do you have to be to be against killing a sandbipoc actively fighting against your country in his sandbipoc hole just because he happens to also be a traitor that holds your country's citizenship?

Everyone focused on trump and noone talking how joe can drone scotus now (he can't).

Scotus lets biden drone trump (it didn't) and reddit is somehow furious about it.

Thirty. Four. Felony. Counts.

Any fricking questions?

"What if the President were a Republican?"

"But Joe Biden is a Democrat."

there could be ritualized combat but we live in a boring world.

There was a time during a particularly r-slurred period of Australian politics where, upon achieving office, the first thing to do was to call a Royal Commission on something mildly controversial that your predecessor did.

Royal Commissions are major inquiries, hugely expensive, take years and require hundreds of lawyers to sort through shit. So calling them on some dodgy union deal your predecessor did 20 years ago, then promptly doing absolutely nothing about the findings or recommendations, was seen as a power move.

Who could concieve of a system like that?

Could you imagine??

Scotus has been fricking amazing lately.

The previous court rulings said the President doesn't have immunity at all. SCOTUS said the he does for official acts and kicked it back down to the lower courts. It's spelled out in the first paragraph. Basically a lower court made a pretty obviously r-slurred ruling.

Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment's allegations fell within the core of his official duties. The District Court denied Trump's motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts.

Below it talks about what can/can't be used as evidence which murkies the waters quite a bit. But after the NY judge saying "if there's smoke then there's probably fire" it's not too surprising.