Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

VMA131Marine

(4,159 posts)

2. While you may be correct

Reply to wnylib (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2024, 12:28 AM

Apr 26

This would lead to enormous leeway for a President to commit crimes while performing official acts.

Was Trump’s call with Raffensberger an official act?
How about the one with Zelenskyy?

What about Nixon’s conduct in Watergate?

I really hope you are wrong.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This is how I think the SC will rule on presidential immunity. [View all] wnylib Apr 25 OP

Sounds about right. 50 Shades Of Blue Apr 26 #1

While you may be correct VMA131Marine Apr 26 #2

I agree with you on what it will lead to. wnylib Apr 26 #3

They just seem awfully stupid. EndlessWire Apr 26 #11

Nixonian. If a President does it, it is an official act, thus not illegal. Freethinker65 Apr 26 #4

That's not the direction that the arguments took. wnylib Apr 26 #10

That has been the goal all along. These people have always been above the law. Always. walkingman Apr 26 #5

It's obvious that the well-to-do are above the law...we've seen it over and over. C Moon Apr 26 #6

This has always been a requirement when we've considering charging a president. Hamlette Apr 26 #7

I read this thinking you would say 6-3 or 5-4 Bucky Apr 26 #8

And an utter refusal to read the criminal statutes will lead to this Rube Goldberg busyness. ancianita Apr 26 #9