News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts. Parent comment

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by anon291 on Monday July 01, 2024 @04:10PM (#40850096)
I would imagine two reasons.

(1) before today, there was no solid answer to what immunity a president may have

(2) it's unclear whether 'January 6' is an 'official' act (or even Trump's act at all, as he was not involved, denounced the rioters immediately, and called for a peaceful assembly)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by paulryanrogers on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:58PM (#40851236)
"Not involved" despite telling the crowd to "fight like hell" and conspiring to have metal detectors removed?

'Immediately' as in many hours after violence started, and his own children begged him to do something?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by anon291 on Monday July 01, 2024 @08:05PM (#40852210)
Fight like hell? Isn't this a phrase that's used for all kinds of things?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by paulryanrogers on Monday July 01, 2024 @08:25PM (#40852336)
Said in an attempt to stop the election process, then followed by hours of suspicious silence in the ensuing assault, I think the intent is pretty clear.
[ Parent | on HN ]