“So, I couldn’t answer your question because I don’t even know what you are claiming the specific underlying act actually is.”
I’d say knowingly using false information to drag a duly elected President through years of criminal trials would qualify as a deliberate violation of Trump’s civil rights in violation of 18USC242. Hence my mention of that statute.
I’d also say that ordering underlings to knowingly use false information to violate the civil rights of a duly elected President might run afoul of th RICO statutes. I can’t see even the most liberal member of SCOTUS signing off on that. But once again, I’m no lawyer. And Roberts has more gyrations that an Olympic gymnast so who knows.
And if you mean to say that SCOTUS said a sitting President can NEVER be considered to have a “guilty mind” I’d politely ask you to point me to the specific section of the decision which states that. Because I must have missed it.
Granted I’m no lawyer and my Latin is a bit rusty. So I could be wrong. My understanding of the decision is that it would need to be litigated to determine whether or not it was an “official act”. Do I have that right?
And just for the record I don’t use ChatGP or any other AI platform to do my research. I don’t trust natural intelligence all that much so I’m very hesitant to use the artificial version.
It’s why I asked the question of you and not ChatGP. I assume you’re a lawyer.
L
"Litigated" in the sense of some motion practice of lawyers writing stuff and arguing about Immunity, but not "litigated" in the sense of an actual trial. The entire point of immunity is that it is improper to have that matter tried at all.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't think the conservative blogosphere is doing us any favors by characterizing the evidence and facts the way they have. They are clearly spinning matters of intent and judgment as if they are uncontroverted facts.
Nobody ever convinces anyone of anything here, and I understand I'm really swimming upstream on this one in particular. So all I'll say is that when the dust settles from all this, Obama will not end up indicted for any of his actions as President related to this. Even if they find some compliant district court judge, it will never survive appeal.
Whether or not that is "right" or "just" isn't the issue I'm debating. I'm just saying that's what the law actually is.