interesting point about the SC immunity decision. any lawfags wanna address the second half of this?
(media.greatawakening.win)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (31)
sorted by:
it does make sense. actus reus and mens rea both have meaning, and are both requirements for convicting someone of a crime.
here was the response i finally managed to give, starting with the part of the decision he was referring to:
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.”
Does that clear things up for you? The decision does not say motive cannot be considered, except in considering whether or not an act counts as official. that does not preclude or inhibit any criminal prosecution against the president.
It is in fact another preventative measure against abuse of presidential power. It prevents any 'the ends justify the means' arguments in defense of the president against criminal prosecution.
weeeoooo i'm quite proud of myself for coming up with the correct response. i'm a bit out on a limb in my last paragraph, but i think i'm right there too.
I AM SO PLEASED TO HAVE WORKED OUT THE ANSWER TO THIS. COME AT ME, LIBTARDS
Is this taken from the SCOTUS decision?
Yas
Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Those who want sauce here it is (page 4).
And yes, your answer is very well put.
That also means that in the example of Biden telling Ukrainian president to stop prosecution of Burisma, it also falls under this same SCOTUS immunity.
This may sound like a disappointment, but if we think a bit moe carefully it makes sense. This kind of act is an "official act" and is definitely "abuse of official power". Constitution already provides a remedy for addressing such corrupt behaviour - Impeachment.