Absolute immunity
In United States law, absolute immunity is a type of sovereign immunity for government officials that confers complete immunity from criminal prosecution and suits for damages, so long as officials are acting within the scope of their duties.

Wikipedia



I think he will get it in part.

rfenst wrote:

So long as he’s acting within the scope of his duties he should get absolute immunity. That’s an acceptable standard, isn’t it?

But Robert, how can he get it in part? Wouldn’t this be all or nothing? Either he has it or he doesn’t?

jeebling wrote:

No Jeebs, there is existing presidential immunity for acting within the scope of the presidency. Keeping top secret documents or higher after no longer being president does not fit inside that scope, neither does election interference. I am not commenting on guilt or innocence here, rather that presidents have a certain bandwidth of immunity, not absolute immunity. Nor am I commenting on a double standard, that is part of a different discussion. Robert, he deserves no additional immunity than he already has. Though perhaps guidelines that clearly define a presidential act should be put in place. If there is beyond a certain level of presidential immunity we are in trouble. Let's play what if. What if SCOTUS rules absolute immunity tomorrow? Then let's say at the next debate Biden pulls out a gun and murders Trump. No problem, absolute immunity exists. Then Biden has every Republican leader in our country murdered, no problem executive immunity exists. What about convicting those who did the murders? No problem they all recieve blanket pardons after they immediately yes I did that. This is a slippery slope that will change our country. This is basically how it works in Russia, China, South Korea, and much of the Middle East. Oh, in this scenario he also has the members of SCOTUS who are conservative as well just because he legally can. Then he purges us of all Trump supporters. No problem he has absolute immunity.

Speyside2 wrote:

Here is the link to the actual Opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

rfenst wrote:

So long as he’s acting within the scope of his duties he should get absolute immunity. That’s an acceptable standard, isn’t it? YES.
But Robert, how can he get it in part? Wouldn’t this be all or nothing? Either he has it or he doesn’t?I am thinking the same thing.

jeebling wrote:

And THAT is embedded in the link I shared.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

What is your point?
You posted a link to a link before I posted a direct link?
Grow up.

rfenst wrote:

"Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no
immunity for unofficial acts."
Syllabus



So the issue boils down to what is and is not an official act within presidential authority. Not a bright line ruling that aids in a final conclusion like everyone hoped for, one way or the other. Instead, it sends the case back to the trial court to decide whether certain conduct was or was not an official act. Thereafter, either side can appeal all the way up to SCOTUS AGAIN. The ruling was inconclusive. Finality could be years and years down the road, or not at all. Without respect to the politics involved, SCOTUS could have concluded everything, but failed to. They let us all down.

rfenst wrote:

What is your point?
You posted a link to a link- before I posted a direct link?
Give me a break.

rfenst wrote:

The point is that you obviously didn't go to the link I put up. If you had you would've seen it there.

DrMaddVibe wrote: