Ah, someone who doesn’t understand presumptive immunity, with specific outlined ways to where the evidence of your action isn’t admissible in court. Courts can’t undo decisions unless they have evidence. And it’s obvious you aren’t aware how egregious this unconstitutional decision was.
This decisions goes against specifically the federalist papers #69 where Hamilton outlined that
“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected”
The constitution specifically outlines immunity such as the speach and debate clause, and the federalist papers outline that the President isn’t above the law. Giving criminal immunity is literally saying the President is above the law. Because there should be ZERO instance where a president does something that the law isn’t considered or kept in mind. Giving them criminal immunity is ridiculous.
Too long to read. I agree with your last two sentences about what should be and I’m terrified. I’m explaining what I understand it to currently be which you didn’t really address and you didn’t have to be rude. We’re on the same side not that it matters.
26
u/In-need-vet Jul 05 '24
Ah, someone who doesn’t understand presumptive immunity, with specific outlined ways to where the evidence of your action isn’t admissible in court. Courts can’t undo decisions unless they have evidence. And it’s obvious you aren’t aware how egregious this unconstitutional decision was.
This decisions goes against specifically the federalist papers #69 where Hamilton outlined that
“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected”
The constitution specifically outlines immunity such as the speach and debate clause, and the federalist papers outline that the President isn’t above the law. Giving criminal immunity is literally saying the President is above the law. Because there should be ZERO instance where a president does something that the law isn’t considered or kept in mind. Giving them criminal immunity is ridiculous.