It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity.
What do you think the odds are for this Supreme Court to declare e.g. that shredding official documents (or moving them to the president's private property) is an official act?
Again, citation needed. The whole problem today is that the category of immunity is so vague so as to be overly broad.
> It does not say that members of the military have immunity for following an unlawful order.
No, but it does say the President has an unreviewable pardon power to absolve them from any crime they are ordered by the President to commit.
> It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity.
It's now also very easy for a court to decide that it is. That is the problem.
Read the judgement. It's literally in the first pages.
> No, but it does say the President has an unreviewable pardon power to absolve them from any crime they are ordered by the President to commit.
A President can't pardon non-federal crimes or overturn the a conviction through impeachment as it would remove power from Congress and the Senate, which a President can't remove.
> It's now also very easy for a court to decide that it is. That is the problem.
Believing that ordering the assassination of elected officials would be considered lawful by judges is just so insane that it makes Alex Jones look like a legal scholar.
That is a narrow standard. The only acts in this case which met that standard were discussions with Justice Department officials.
Everything else in this case was in fact remanded, and it remains within the power of the lower courts to deny Trump immunity on all other aspects of the case.
