There are both civil and criminal contempt. Doesn’t matter though, since then we get back to “official acts,” which would end up at SCOTUS, who would just wave it off no matter what it was about.
That protects Trump, not the people following illegal orders. At least office immunity doesn’t extend to the entire executive anywhere else in the world as far as I know.
Immunity for official acts is supposed to prevent the judges from doing a coup by arresting elected politicians, not to give the executive powers to ignore the other branches.
“Official acts.”
Official act would be complying with the Judge…but potatoe, patatoe…or whatever.
And yes, I spelled potatoe wrong both times on purpose.
SCOTUS ruled that a president cannot be criminally charged for any “official acts” taken while in office.
“when the president does it, it isn’t illegal”
“They just let you do it”
Did that ruling not also leave it up to the courts to determine what constitutes an official act?
So that it can go up to SCOTUS again, yes.
Contempt is a civil charge no? So can’t they still throw him in a cell?
There are both civil and criminal contempt. Doesn’t matter though, since then we get back to “official acts,” which would end up at SCOTUS, who would just wave it off no matter what it was about.
Did you misspell it the third time on purpose?
Yes. Why not.
Just asking because you only specified the first two. Thanks for clarifying.
That protects Trump, not the people following illegal orders. At least office immunity doesn’t extend to the entire executive anywhere else in the world as far as I know.
Immunity for official acts is supposed to prevent the judges from doing a coup by arresting elected politicians, not to give the executive powers to ignore the other branches.
Pardons, selective lack of prosecution, weak sentencing, failure to convict.
Next?