Comments by "nuqwestr" (@nuqwestr) on "How the US Supreme Court ruling on former president’s immunity could affect Trump cases | DW News" video.

@KrystianKarbowski-kh3pd President does not have immunity for criminal acts of a private nature while in office and can be removed from office by the Congress. Nothing has changed.
2
No
1
No, false comparison, there's nothing in the Constitution equal to what the Weimar had for any president to take that kind of power. Constitution has articles of impeachment.
1
No, presidents do not have absolute immunity, and the constitution has articles of impeachment to remove a president from office, nothing has changed.
1
@jager6863 Yes, thank you. Nixon had two immunity cases, one he lost, the other, a civil case, he won. So much misinformation that some just want to believe.
1
Nothing changed, if you ARE an American you should know that. No president has absolute power, cannot commit a criminal act of a private nature while in office and can face articles of impeachment.
1
Nothing changed, just affirmed. Presidents have always had absolute immunity for official acts while in office, but not criminal acts of a private nature, still don't. If a president claims "official act", they can still be charged, they can also still be impeached and removed from office. All Americans have "presumptive immunity", it's in the constitution, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty, same for a president. Please.
1
SCOTUS reaffirmed rights already conferred and ruled on by the court. Nothing changed.
1
Nixon did claim immunity and lost that particular case, but won a later case related to a civil matter. History is forgotten. We never saw him charged because Ford pardoned him.
1
No, not true
1
No, the US is not structured legally like the Weimar. That's false.
1
@brucel7430 SCOTUS didn't change the Nixon decision. He lost that case, but won another: Nixon v. Fitzgerald :: 457 U.S. 731 (1982) US Supreme Court Nixon v. Fitzgerald: The President has absolute immunity from liability for civil damages arising from any official action taken while in office.
1
@brucel7430 Yes, thank you. However, that can still be challenged at a later date. But you assume Trump ordered the DOJ to help him overturn the election. If that were true, it would not be covered as an official act, it would be criminal and private. SCOTUS is an equal branch and can challenge "official acts" of a president. we have checks and balances.
1
No, Presidents have always had absolute immunity for constitutional acts, but not criminal acts of a private nature. All Americans are "presumed" innocent before proven guilty, that has NOT changed.
1
SCOTUS has not given up the power to decide "official acts". You are just incorrect. SCOTUS only ruled on one aspect of "official acts" and sent the others down to the lower courts. It's not over, it's just begun. The decision left open the possibility that the charges brought against former President Donald Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith – alleging that Trump conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election – can still go forward to the extent that the charges are based on his private conduct, rather than his official acts. The case now returns to the lower courts for them to determine whether the conduct at the center of the charges against Trump was official or unofficial – an inquiry that, even if it leads to the conclusion that the charges can proceed, will almost certainly further delay any trial in the case, which had originally been scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024 but is currently on hold. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) Argued: November 30, 1981 Decided: June 24, 1982 Annotation PRIMARY HOLDING The President has absolute immunity from liability for civil damages arising from any official action taken while in office.
1
@aconcernedworldcitizen236 Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” "It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. " - Trump v United States The court maintained the balance of power, it did not create a "King".
1
@aconcernedworldcitizen236 "At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15." - Trump v US This leaves open prosecution, just states it must not pose a danger to the balance of power in our system. I'm for that.
1
@aconcernedworldcitizen236 "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. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. " Trump v US Again, this protects the office, not the person holding the office, who will still be liable for "official actions" if evidence show a criminal or unconstitutional act, but holds the president immune for shear allegation of motive without evidence. The president, like all citizens, have the constitutional right to be presumed innocent. The lower court is now forced to show that evidence, not just a mere "thought crime". Jack Smith will not be able to do that.
1
@aconcernedworldcitizen236 (c) Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. But the text of the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. " Trump v US This is the crux of the case. Does the constitution require the removal of immunity by impeachment prior to a criminal prosecution? SCOTUS found that the lower court's decision was based on incomplete or unclear facts. Sending the case back allows the lower court to gather additional evidence or clarify specific details necessary for a fair decision.
1
SCOTUS just affirmed a constitutional right the president already had. Nothing changed.
1
@DSan-kl2yc Britain will vote labor, American is still split almost 50/50 vote will be on economy and immigration, but states like California and New York remain far left.
1
Weird translation, sorry, but this is not 1933 Germany in America, doesn't work that way here.
1
that would be a criminal of a private citizen, he'd be charged and found guilty.
1