• Questy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Not really, in this case they are equating actions Trump took to overturn his election loss as official duties. It’s definitely a messy part of the law, but if you bundle the actions taken to bring down a governmental system with those taken in the administration of that system you’re probably only trying to help bring it down.

    • walden@sub.wetshaving.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      No, they’re saying if it was an official duty, he’s immune. If he did something unofficial (as decided by lower courts), he’s not immune. I don’t know many details off the top of my head, but for example tweeting to the Proud Boys, could be considered unofficial. Or whatever. I’m not a law person.

      He can still be prosecuted etc., but it’s going to take time for lower courts to figure out how to handle it.

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 days ago

        They’re also saying that you can’t use communication with his administration against him. The place where you would be most likely to find evidence that an act was unofficial has been ruled off limits by these asshats. It’s a lot worse than it seems.

      • Cobrachickenwing@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        The supreme court has already ruled Congress does (via the 14th amendment debacle). There is going to be a lot more impeachment hearings because if Congress doesn’t like the president it will find every way to declare the presidential act non official and impeach.