Right!
Except the kid is across the world, and we don't know them very well. Last we heard, they were one of the worst children in the world. Instead of asking the neighbors to pool money to build a boat to go save this kid, you go to all your neighbors and steal that money.
Fuckin' a logic.
Not wanting to fund a war doesn't mean they hate Ukraine or it's citizens.
Not everyone who disagrees with war or your position on it is deep throating Putin.
The president has always enjoyed immunity for performing official duties. Obviously.
Before prosecuting a president you have always had to stop and determine if what was done was in an official capacity or an unofficial capacity. It's been like that for 200 years. That's why you can't charge bush 1, bush 2, or Obama with war crimes. Furthermore, the court made their stance on Trump quite clear. They did not dismiss any of his cases. If they were in his pocket, and he had this absolute immunity as you claim, all cases would be dropped.
Folks, it's quite clear what the president can and cannot do. He can pardon, appoint, dismiss, and instruct the military to take actions and has full immunity to do so. Which of course the president must have full immunity for those actions. If you or I send a missle to kill people we would get charged. The president would not.
Moreover, presumptive immunity leaves the door wide open. The ruling says that any action taken with presumptive immunity may be challenged and that the burden is on the government to show that the action was not within the presidents duties, and failed to uphold the constitutional oath taken. If the president blatantly breaks the law that burden of proof would be childish to gather. The president is not above the law, and never was.
In 1982 SCOTUS made a decision on this:
"We hold that the petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts."
The media, the Democrats, but I repeat myself, have all been lying to you. This has always been the case. Nothing has changed.
The U.S. Constitution includes several provisions that limit the powers of the president and prevent the president from committing crimes without consequences:
Article I, Section 2 and Section 3: These sections provide the House of Representatives the power to impeach the president and the Senate the power to try and convict the president. Impeachment is a process by which the president can be removed from office for committing "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article II, Section 4: This section specifically states that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: The president must take an oath of office to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This oath implies a legal and ethical obligation to adhere to the law and Constitution.
Checks and Balances: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, whereby the legislative and judicial branches can limit the actions of the executive branch. Congress can pass laws, override presidential vetoes, and control the budget, while the judiciary can review the constitutionality of presidential actions through judicial review.
Together, these provisions and principles ensure that the president is subject to the rule of law and can be held accountable for criminal actions.
You're welcome, glad you could put more words in my mouth.