• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    The court only has to “presume” it was an official act. That presumption is rebuttable. The prosecutor would present an argument that such a bribe was not an “official” act; the judge is free to accept that argument.

    • Anamnesis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      In ordinary situations, you’re presumed innocent until proven guilty. When you’re the president, according to SCOTUS, it’s presumed that the law doesn’t even apply to you because of immunity. And proving that it applies to you requires proving that what you did was or was not a nebulously defined “official act.”

      This ruling will make it virtually impossible to convict a former president of anything.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          The ruling specified he was absolutely immune for conversations with his Justice Department officials, who would either be the people he was instructing to not act or a pretty exact match to whatever other department is being told not to act.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Funny, because Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor and the other two dissents disagree and specifically warned it will be used to execute political rivals.

      But you’d know better, I’m sure.