You should fact check posts yourself before sharing them.
“[SCOTUS] decision to grant presidents immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed while in office not only gives Donald Trump a free pass for his past crimes, but sets a dangerous precedent for all future presidents.”
The actual decision only gives the President immunity if an 'official duty' is involved.
The decision in question has been widely ridiculed, because it would seemingly allow a President to accept bribes, which is a crime clearly not tolerated by the Constitution.
Your comment isn't a "fact check."
You used the term “official duty” yet the term used in the ruling was “official act” and a pardon is an official act. Not only that but the constitution protects him as well (as fucked as that is) because of this article:
The SCOTUS is protecting him with this ruling. They made this ruling just a few months before he stole the election. They knew he’d be a tyrant and they wanted to help him do it. My link is definitely fact checking it because a pardon is an official act while in office. Read the SCOTUS ruling.
Was treason one of the crimes they claim is enumerated to presidential privilege, after claiming they have no power to interpret The Constitution in the Dobbs decision?
Comments
“[SCOTUS] decision to grant presidents immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed while in office not only gives Donald Trump a free pass for his past crimes, but sets a dangerous precedent for all future presidents.”
The decision in question has been widely ridiculed, because it would seemingly allow a President to accept bribes, which is a crime clearly not tolerated by the Constitution.
Your comment isn't a "fact check."
Bye.
I admit that the idea that Trump could be charged with treason for issuing a pardon is a huge stretch.
But your retort also went way too far. The text of the decision is _not_ a license to commit crimes.
I have read the ruling.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-some-immunity-from-prosecution/