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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Takket

(23,745 posts) Mon Jul 1, 2024, 12:02 PM Jul 2024

So... the immunity ruling... what changed here? [View all]

They granted immunity for official acts, but not unofficial acts. Which is exactly how I thought this worked already. You can order the killing of a foreign combatant but not the guy you caught sleeping with your wife.

So since inciting the insurrection and stealing classified documents are not official acts, what is the problem here? I’m not aware that DOJ had any intention of prosecuting drumpf for any “official” act. Nor should they.

Am I missing something?

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So... the immunity ruling... what changed here? [View all] Takket Jul 2024 OP

Think about who gets the ultimately decide what is and is not an official act Eliot Rosewater Jul 2024 #1

But about those documents - refusing to return them promptly, RandomNumbers Jul 2024 #4

Your mistake is you're using logic and the law, Supreme Court no longer does Eliot Rosewater Jul 2024 #7

Bingo intrepidity Jul 2024 #5

Not missing anything DarthDem Jul 2024 #2

. DarthDem Jul 2024 #3

it reamins to be seen bigtree Jul 2024 #6

How is a speech to the public not an official act? Goodheart Jul 2024 #8

What I find unsettling is Roberts' comment on what can be used as evidence to determine official versus unofficial. Lonestarblue Jul 2024 #9

Ah. Okay thank you Takket Jul 2024 #10

Question, Who determines whether an act is official act or it is unofficial act ? republianmushroom Jul 2024 #11