• cybersandwich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I felt like I must have misread the ruling after seeing all of the articles and comments.

    Former presidents also have a “presumption of immunity” for their official acts while in office — but, the court ruled, there is no immunity for “unofficial acts.”

    So chutkin is going to decide what acts were official acts and which were unofficial.

    But “presumption of immunity” is a weird fucking phrase too because it makes it seem like you can prove they aren’t immune? Like presumption of innocence–you start there and work the other way. So presumably(pardon the pun) you can start there with this and work the other way still?

    I’d need actual lawyers to make this make sense.

    But either way it didn’t seem as “carte Blanche presidents can do anything” to me when I read it.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      We’re waiting at this point for the lower courts to to decide which of Trump’s egregious crimes were “official” or not. In the meantime, all his trials get suspended. In January, if he takes office, they will vanish when he becomes a dictator on day one (his words).

    • ParetoOptimalDev@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’d need actual lawyers to make this make sense.

      You mean like the dissenting judges?

      But either way it didn’t seem as “carte Blanche presidents can do anything” to me when I read it.

      Read the dissent. The most qualified people say it is literally carte blanche in the dissent.