Archive article: https://archive.is/5RuNt
President Trump’s Justice Department has concluded that a federal law requiring presidential records to be turned over to the government is unconstitutional, a senior White House official tells Axios. Why it matters: The finding is an indication Trump will be reluctant to give all of his official records to the National Archives at the end of his term, as presidents have done for nearly a half-century under the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
Supreme Court already decided that the president of the United States has immunity for any and all official acts. There are no laws that apply Trump at the moment. All he has to do is wrap his actions or inactions in some flimsy pretext of it being an official act of the office of the president.
Though I appreciate these cases continuing to slap the Supreme Court justices in the face for their disastrous ruling.
I think it’s amazing that people can say:
And follow it with:
Qualifiers are important in legal matters, and in this case, it is the word “Official.” Official Acts are those outlined in the Constitution.
For instance, a lot of MAGAs worked up a dose of faux outrage for Obama drone-striking a wedding, and killing innocent people. MAGA wanted to characterize it as murder, and charge him. In that case, the Supreme Court decision would protect him, because greenlighting the drone-bombing of a known terrorist is part of his presidential duties.
But using your presidential office to steal, take bribes, launder dirty money, obstruct justice, commit election fraud, systematically deny citizens rights, etc., are NOT Official Constitutional Duties, and he doesn’t have immunity for those CRIMES.
He may not be able to be prosecuted while in office, but once he’s out, his presidential immunity will not extend to criminal activity.
They never defined “official acts”. They are whatever Trump’s Supreme Court wants them to be.
No, that means that what’s an official act and what isn’t remains to be defined by statute or adjudicated.
Remind me again who adjudicates things.
Any reasonable reading of “Official” would mean those indicated in the Constitution. What are the Presidential duties outlined in the Constitution but Official? If those aren’t the Official duties, what are they?
They clearly aren’t just suggestions. Article 1/ Sections 2 & 3 is full of “Shalls,” leaving little doubt that this is the job. If there are no other indications for anything else to make a claim to be Official acts, then it would be reasonable to default to following the Constitutional duties, which were conceived to be the OFFICIAL duties of the POTUS.
Yeah, but WTF does that have to do with the current SCOTUS?