BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
- Banned
- #861
The immunity covers both just the same. You can't do one without the other.
You’re babbling. And, of course, you remain wrong.
Again, since you’re tragically ignorant and not particularly concerned with accuracy or honesty, I will correct you yet again.
Let’s talk about a President. He does a job within the ambit of his duties. A scumbag like you happens not to like that he didn’t at all much less the manner in which he did it. So, being the hack you are, you seek to have him prosecuted once he is out of office
Since the immunity only comes into existence at all if his actions are within the ambit of his duties, he wouldn’t get immunity at all if they were outside that ambit.
The reason FOR any immunity (civil liability and/or from criminal prosecution) is to enable the President to do his or her official duties without having to temporize them out of fear that some scumbag down the road might try to imprison him for doing his lawful duty.
I realize you will never admit to the validity of these concerns. So this argument is pointless with you. It is sufficient that the SCOTUS understood the true dangers and acted accordingly (as to civil liability).
Try reading the entire decision in the Nixon case.
It will be the SCOTUS who decides now whether to extend the immunity to criminal prosecutions. Not me. Not you.