• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Good point, and well made. The immunity is explicitly for POTUS. If those carrying out the act are aware they are committing a crime they could be charged accordingly.

    It unfortunately may change a lot for Trump, depending on what judges rule to be “official acts” of his Presidency. Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.

      How? The documents case is about stuff he did after he left office. Things he does after he is no longer President definitionally cannot be official acts of his Presidency.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        There is no duration limit to the immunity ruling. If she deems the ownership of documents an official act, she could rule that immunity covers all acts related to the documents until their return.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          I don’t understand what you mean. Even if he believed he had the right to retain the documents, he wasn’t willfully improperly keeping the documents or obstructing their retrieval until after he was out of office - you’d basically just have to not charge him regarding any documents he handed over the first time, because after the first time handing over documents he definitely knew better and definitely wasn’t in office.

    • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Except the President has pardon power.

      Soooo, henchmen also have absolute immunity if the president is fully aware that what he has ordered is illegal.