This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
trollslayer · 46-50, M
I don’t see what the debate is. Generally a president has immunity if the accused crime was part of their official duties relating to national interests. So you can’t charge the president with manslaughter for signing a law that loosens gun restrictions. But if the crime is to further personal interests, why should a president be immune?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@trollslayer There isn't really a debate, right? What you wrote is accurate and widely accepted. The only reason this has been raised is to allow it to go before the Supreme Court, who mysteriously decided to hear it... at the last possible minute... and who will now delay, delay, delay, and generally buy time for their owner.
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@newjaninev2 Exactly.
Wiseacre · F
@trollslayer why indeed?