9 Dec 2024 7:17 am
Uh, yes he did. And the SCOTUS said he did.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald - Wikipedia
In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court found that "the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office."[5] The Court did not address the issue of immunity from criminal prosecution.[6]
The Court noted that a grant of absolute immunity to the President would not leave him with unfettered power. It stated that there were formal and informal checks on presidential action that did not apply with equal force to other executive officials.[7]
The Court observed that the President was subjected to constant scrutiny by the press and noted that vigilant oversight by Congress would also serve to deter presidential abuses of office and to make the threat of impeachment credible. It determined that other incentives to avoid presidential misconduct existed, including the desire to earn re-election, the need to maintain prestige as an element of presidential influence, and the traditional concern for his historical stature.[8]The decision was clarified by Clinton v. Jones, in which the Court held that a President is subject to civil suits for actions committed before he assumes the presidency
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.