And before everyone goes nuts, the argument is going to be not that he told them to invent fake evidence, but rather that he wanted every bit of evidence there was in case Trump really was supported by the Russians. And that's going to be close enough to an official duty of the President to get him immunity.
And it should. Because going down the road of Presidents keep trying to throw other ones in prison is banana republic crap.
My running understanding is that Obama cannot be tried for military conduct, because the CIC has the ultimate say in military authority.
He can be tried under treason, however.
We are already there in case you didnt remember.whats good for the goose is good for the gander.No one is above the law or so they say.
Obama doesn’t have presidential immunity in this case because he had criminal intent which nullifies any immunity. (See SCOTUS, Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024).)
I am burying you
From Grok
Absolute Immunity for Core Constitutional Powers: The Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity for actions within their “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority (e.g., issuing pardons, recognizing foreign governments, or removing executive officials). For these acts, mens rea or intent is irrelevant because immunity is automatic and cannot be questioned by prosecutors or courts.scotusblog.comaei.org
Presumptive Immunity for Other Official Acts: For official acts outside core constitutional powers (e.g., conversations with Justice Department officials or interactions with the Vice President), the president is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. This presumption can be rebutted if the government shows that prosecuting the act would not intrude on the executive branch’s authority or functions. The Court explicitly stated that immunity for official acts does not depend on the president’s motives or intent, meaning mens rea is largely irrelevant in determining immunity for these acts. However, the prosecution can still proceed if it overcomes the presumption, focusing on the act’s impact rather than the president’s state of mind.scotusblog.comvox.com
No Immunity for Unofficial Acts: The Court held that there is no immunity for unofficial or private acts (e.g., actions taken as a private citizen or candidate). For these acts, mens rea and intent are fully relevant, as the president is treated like any other criminal defendant, and standard criminal law principles, including intent, apply.scotusblog.com
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasized that immunity for official acts is rooted in separation of powers principles, not the president’s subjective intent. The Court also ruled that evidence of official acts subject to immunity cannot be used to prove intent or other elements of a crime involving unofficial acts, further limiting the relevance of mens rea for immune conduct.pbs.orgnytimes.com
Critics, including the dissenting justices (Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson), argued that this framework effectively shields presidents from accountability for criminal intent when using official powers, citing hypothetical examples like ordering assassinations or coups. However, the majority countered that immunity is necessary to protect an “energetic” executive and that unofficial acts remain fully prosecutable.reuters.comaei.org
In summary, the Court did not grant full immunity for all presidential acts. Immunity is absolute for core powers, presumptive for other official acts (with mens rea largely irrelevant in both cases), and nonexistent for unofficial acts, where intent is fully considered. The case was remanded to lower courts to determine which of Trump’s specific actions in the 2020 election interference case were official or unofficial, leaving open the possibility of prosecution for non-immune conduct.
I just fucked you up the ass and came. Don’t you ever challenge me again chester
So, we should just hump our shoulders and forget about the dim's trying to throw Trump in jail....until the next time maybe? Because they will you know...
So a President should be able to clearly and plainly violate 18USC242?
Please explain how that is an “official” act of the President.
L