United States of America v. Ramiz Zijad Hodzic et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, No.4:15CR49CDP/DDN, 9 May 2018

Lawful combatants enjoy “combatant immunity” for acts of warfare, including the wounding or killing of other human beings, “provided those actions were performed in the context of ongoing hostilities against lawful military targets, and were not in violation of the law of war.”

Let's follow that logic.

You locate a terrorist. You just so happen to have a couple guys who can bomb that terrorist. You murder the terrorist. You are charged with murder because the laws of this nation do not allow murder.

Same scenario, but now it's the president. Please tell me what the difference is. Why can the president not be charged with a crime but you can? What would you call that?

You disagree with 74 million people then?

Indeed it does. The president has always had immunity. This is civil immunity. There is also criminal immunity because you can't prosecute the president for ordering the deaths of thousands of people. Unlike say, you know if I was responsible for thousands of deaths. Or even one death. The president must have some immunity to carry out their duty as commander and chief. We have laws against murder. Ever find it funny you can't go after the president for murder? No, you never once considered it.

Why do you consider the Republican party racists? What makes the party as whole this way to you?

No? Can the president be charged with murder for telling the military to drone strike someone? No they cannot, because they are immune. They have to have some immunity in order to execute their duties.

Well, didn't take long to out yourself as a fascist did you?

I read the decision. The dissent is so ludicrous no one takes it seriously. I've seen several discussions of lawyers breaking the decision down. The only part of the dissent that makes sense is Amy Conny Barrett's examples.

The president has always enjoyed immunity for performing official duties. Obviously.

Yeah, again, settled in 1981. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Fitzgerald#:~:text=Nixon v. Fitzgerald%2C 457 U.S.,predicated on his official acts."

I copy and pasted from the 1981 ruling. Anyway, hope you have a good one!

I wonder why you'd prefer a partisan court?

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.

Trails court does. You obviously didn't read the ruling. We have nothing to discuss.

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 president already had immunity before this ruling. You or I cannot send a missle to Iran to kill people. The president can. It's been like this for 200 years. It was like this when Trump was president. The president didn't gain any magic law dodging powers. They aren't suddenly a genie that can do whatever they want.

The Constitution bestows the power upon the presidential office onto the president. Not SCOTUS.

Does it? I see one example that isn't violent.

Incorrect. Breaking the law is never an official act of the office, and therefore, cannot be protected.

I wonder, what do you think the ruling changed? What can the president do now that the president wasn't able to do before?