Hacker News

points by pjc50 3 days ago | 0 comments

Recall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States for a moment:

"Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts".

Now, if there was any kind of consistency, there would be a ruling that the president's "personal" White House papers aren't above the law, but I expect another piece of legal Calvinball to happen again.

[–] HaZeust 3 days ago

I mean, read the decision. Any evidence that proves whether a contested event or action was "official" or not is inadmissible in court. The Courts cannot investigate the President's motives when deciding whether an action was official or unofficial, and prosecutors cannot use evidence of immune official presidential acts to establish criminal liability, even when prosecuting separate, unofficial conduct.

We simply HAVE to take the Executive's word for whether an action was official or not.

[–] techlover14159 3 days ago

Only when one party does it. See how quickly this will be ruled/interpreted the other way if a Dem admin does it next time.

[–] HaZeust 3 days ago

I admire the optimism; but unfortunately it benefits ANY party in power, so there's little incentive to ignore or overrule. The gauntlet is thrown.

[–] AreYouBreedRead 2 days ago

America is cooked SMH