The ruling doesn’t even allow unrelated trials to use evidence that might be from official presidential business. Trump just requested his conviction in NY to be overburdened based on this ruling. So how it would not protect criminal acts when you can see in your own eyes this being used to get away from criminal acts. The other trials are also in jeopardy.
As for the “decision made by trials court” that is insignificant as SCOTUS can override them.
You cannot commit criminal acts in an official capacity, full stop. It is not possible. The moment your actions are criminal you are no longer upholding the oath you have taken and the action is not official. Obviously.
Oo, nice try turning this around on them. But nah, man, you’re refusing to acknowledge the ruling itself explicitly telling you you’re wrong. You’re not arguing in good faith. Go away.
If official conduct for which the President is immune may
be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges
that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the
“intended effect” of immunity would be defeated.
The ruling doesn’t even allow unrelated trials to use evidence that might be from official presidential business. Trump just requested his conviction in NY to be overburdened based on this ruling. So how it would not protect criminal acts when you can see in your own eyes this being used to get away from criminal acts. The other trials are also in jeopardy.
As for the “decision made by trials court” that is insignificant as SCOTUS can override them.
You cannot commit criminal acts in an official capacity, full stop. It is not possible. The moment your actions are criminal you are no longer upholding the oath you have taken and the action is not official. Obviously.
“When the president does it, it is not illegal”
This has been a long time coming and the presumption is that he is allowed to until that is somehow challenged.
Again, incorrect. Stop reading headlines and making decisions. Read the ruling. You are spreading misinformation.
Oo, nice try turning this around on them. But nah, man, you’re refusing to acknowledge the ruling itself explicitly telling you you’re wrong. You’re not arguing in good faith. Go away.
Direct from the decision (page 31):