3 ms·
> Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them b
by dustincoates 2y ago
> Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.
Most likely not. Watergate was a result of an election campaign, not official acts as President.
- jshier 2y agoYeah, Nixon should've ordered his secretary to do it, as all executive communications are now protected against criminal investigation.
- camel_Snake 2y agoI'm not so sure about that. From this ruling: > Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. And the 'smoking gun' implicating Nixon: > Nixon then released the tapes six days later. On one tape was the so-called "smoking gun," showing that six days after the break-in Nixon had tried to use the CIA to block the FBI investigation of the burglary. IANAL, but my understanding is under this ruling those tapes would have never been made permissible evidence in court. Giving orders to the CIA is certainly an official act, as much as granting pardons is, and this court has established the examination of said motives is out-of-scope: > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]