More specifically, use of any constitutional power listed in article 2 is automatically an official act with presumptive immunity. So ordering the military to assassinate a political rival? Immune from criminal prosecution, cannot even be mentioned in a courtroom or used as evidence, per the conservative (fascist) justices on the supreme court. Other powers in there that are automatically always official with presumptive immunity include removing or hiring anyone in the executive branch (including the department of justice), the pardon power, and the disturbingly vague “take care the laws be faithfully executed” power that caused even Barret to take pause from the broad immunity they were granting the president (she wrote a concurrence that even she had an issue with how broadly this could be interpreted).
The president using powers not described in article 2 they barely even tried to define, so who knows. The only example they gave was talking to justice department officials was an official act. So talking to the justice department to help with a coup attempt? Immune. And to rub salt in the wound, the conversations cannot even be used as evidence in court.
The recent supreme Court decision that decided that all official presidential acts are immune from persecution irregardless of intent. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
More specifically, use of any constitutional power listed in article 2 is automatically an official act with presumptive immunity. So ordering the military to assassinate a political rival? Immune from criminal prosecution, cannot even be mentioned in a courtroom or used as evidence, per the conservative (fascist) justices on the supreme court. Other powers in there that are automatically always official with presumptive immunity include removing or hiring anyone in the executive branch (including the department of justice), the pardon power, and the disturbingly vague “take care the laws be faithfully executed” power that caused even Barret to take pause from the broad immunity they were granting the president (she wrote a concurrence that even she had an issue with how broadly this could be interpreted).
The president using powers not described in article 2 they barely even tried to define, so who knows. The only example they gave was talking to justice department officials was an official act. So talking to the justice department to help with a coup attempt? Immune. And to rub salt in the wound, the conversations cannot even be used as evidence in court.
Thanks you