TLDR: there are no qualifying limitations on presidential immunity

Not only does any US president now have complete immunity from “official” actions(with zero qualifying restrictions or definitions), but if those actions are deemed “unofiicial”, no jury is legally allowed to witness the evidence in any way since that would interfere with the now infinitely broad “official” presidential prerogatives.

Furthermore, if an unofficial atrocity is decided on during an official act, like the president during the daily presidential briefing ordering the army to execute the US transexual population, the subsequent ordered executions will be considered legally official presidential acts since the recorded decision occurred during a presidential duty.

There are probably other horrors I haven’t considered yet.

Then again, absolute immunity is absolute immunity, so I don’t know how much threat recognition matters here.

If the US president can order an action, that action can be legally and officially carried out.

Not constitutionally, since the Constitution specifically holds any elected politician subject to the law, but legally and officially according to the supreme court, who has assumed higher power then the US Constitution to unconstitutionally allege that the US President is absolutely immune from all legal restrictions and consequences.

  • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    And this is the comment you chose to…what? Add to the discussion? Enlighten people? Promote some sort of discourse? Or is it just mindless pedantry?

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’m sick and tired of jerkwads fucking up the definitions. Happy now?

      It matters because liberals have always been the enablers of fascists, and people need to understand that. Blaming the “leftists” instead is a scapegoating bullshit lie.