WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court found on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.

  • elbucho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    So one of the things that the majority said was that Trump’s pressuring of the justice department to “investigate” nonexistent voter fraud in several states by threatening to sack the acting attorney general if he didn’t was completely within his sphere of official duties, and thus immune from prosecution:

    The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial func- tions of the Justice Department and its officials.

    So, basically, the president can attempt to force the justice department to conduct sham investigations pretty much whenever he wants, and he’s completely immune from prosecution for doing so. So I say Biden should just order the justice department to go after literally everybody associated with Trump. Why not? It’s not like the courts could do anything about it now that the supreme court has issued this asinine ruling.

  • Coffee Addict@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court found on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.

    The justices, in a 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court’s decision rejecting Trump’s claim of immunity from criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.

    The court’s six conservative justices were in the majority and its three liberal justices dissented.

    “We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” Roberts wrote.

    “At least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity,” Roberts added.

    Roberts said Trump’s case will be sent back to the lower courts for further review.

    Well, at least it’s not total immunity, but it’s still leaves room for the President to take advantage of the position for personal gain (or, in Trump’s case, undermine the nation for personal gain).

    It also should never have taken this long to render a decision.