A dumb question for one of you to answer.

[3825-87867]

If the president can't be charged with literally any crime commited while in office, (thanks Roberts et al) if an appointee, without direct, signed authorization from the Presidunce, orders something "illegal" can they be charged and or arrested?

[The Roux Comes First]

1. In My Uninformed Opinion, They Absolutely Could! Of Course It Would Call for An Uncorrupted

"Supreme" Court, not to mention a DOJ that has any skill but bootlicking to make it happen.

[PATRICK]

2. Hitler never faced trial

and Nuremberg never lacked for criminals to prosecute.

[Morbius]

3. Technically...

A President is immune from prosecution for any acts performed in office as functions of his duties. According to what the Supreme Court ruled, he can be charged with things that don't qualify as part of his job. Of course, the definition of those limits will change quite a bit once a Democrat is in office. Currently, President Trump can claim anything he does is part of his job, and SCOTUS will back him up.

So, if someone appointed by the President orders an illegal act, it probably depends whether or not those orders are advancing the President's agenda, although the stated position of SCOTUS is that the immunity is limited to the office-holder himself.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. One more reason court expansion is a must. Nt

[Silent Type]

4. The underlings can be charged. However, trump wouldn't be charged/tried for shooting someone on 5th Ave if

he could show that person was an imminent threat — like carrying a big bomb — to country and as Prez he was protecting us.

Now, if he shot a homeless person, a court would have to decide if that was an attempt to make MAGA happy, therefore immune, or was just Trump having fun shooting poor people. That would presumably be outside the “official duties” definition.

[BadgerKid]

5. But would they be pardonable?

Would they chance being unpardonable, though?