Pwnallthethings: I think the basic implication of the case is if the President asks an official to do it, it's not chargeable, which seems to me to be plainly wrong

god what a waste of paper

The central thesis of the case here is just ... wrong. That's not the crux of the dispute. USG always always always maintained official acts are immune and non-official acts are not. That's the easy bit. The hard bit is deciding if an act is official, and SCOTUS just punts on that actual core

so when Trump talks with DOJ officials to drum up an objectively sham investigation for electoral benefit, USG's position was that's not an official act, because ordering sham investigations for electoral benefits is not a proper function of the presidency, but the actions of a corrupt /candidate/

Honestly seems like the actual import of the case may just be the holding/implication that that's wrong, everything the president could possibly say to a DOJ official is within the scope of his constitutional authority??

I think the basic implication of the case is if the President asks an official to do it, it's not chargeable, which seems to me to be plainly wrong

Folks overfocus on the "what if drone strike opponent" question, but it seems to me the more relevant one is "what if President asks CIA to bug opponent's headquarters". Which normal people would correctly identify as a criminal action, and which, as I read this ruling, would be an official act.

I’ll make sure to inform Nixon of his error, then.

Really, more Ford than Nixon. The impeachment is still on the table, but the pardon was (apparently) not required.

But surely, Pwn, no president would ever attempt such a brazen violation

That's very fucking scary stuff going on there in America

Brandmauer kaputt

Biden could MAKE "what if drone strike opponent" relevant

The "founding fathers" - who were militantly anti-royalty for obvious reasons - would be leading mobs to burn SCOTUS right now.

What if President orders DoJ to arrests all members of Congress & SCOTUS from the other party? And then any judge willing to try to release them.

So why doesn't biden just openly spy on trump with zero warrants in fears he's coordinating with russia and the saudisto get elected again?

Just to unpack: - CIA domestic action is illegal - Wiretaps without signed warrant illegal - Info collected non-admissible (poison fruit, etc.) So, is an Official Act really 'official' if the command is truly for clearly illegal acts? How will this be tested, 'cause it really needs testing ASAP!

This all does seem like a multidecade "fixing" of Watergate, yes.

Yep. It keeps shocking me how much we're living the revenge of Nixon.

Would using the CIA in the US not make it unofficial, for it to be an official act would he not have to get the FBI, or other Federal agency involved? Not that I know, because I'm Irish.

Nope. "Official acts" is quite a bit broader than "acts for which you had actual legal authority."

Thank you. Every day is a school day. Though, in the case of the US Supreme Court today it feels as if someone is roaming the halls of the Constitution and legal tradition with a bump stock equipped assault rifle...

So if the President does it, it's not illegal? I do wonder if the fall of Nixon and the Reagan scandals had such a profound effect on conservatives of a it should not have happened/cannot happen feeling was a major part of jurisprudence policy, like the unitary executive.

Indeed, it seems that "Befehl ist Befehl" is now a perfectly acceptable defense.

Frost v. Nixon is good law.

Post