Habt ihr das Urteil mal gelesen? (Politik)

Bender B. Rodriguez, Düsseldorf, Montag, 01.07.2024, 20:34 (vor 33 Tagen) @ Gigant
bearbeitet von Bender B. Rodriguez, Montag, 01.07.2024, 20:39

Hier geht's zur Sache: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Ja, ich bin kein Jurist, aber ich muss schon an mich halten, denn es ist schwammig ohne Ende. Im Grunde fehlt wohl nicht viel und er kann fortan jeden Regierungsangestellten zum Wahlbetrug erpressen, wie er will. Das Urteil ist doch im besten Fall schiere Naivität der RichterInnen hinsichtlich der Beweislast zur Abgrenzung des Charakters einer Tat ("Beweis mal, dass es ein unofficial act ist") und im schlimmsten Fall pure Absicht.

Hier mal ein paar Leckerbissen.
"Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action. But the breadth of the President’s “discretionary responsibilities” under the Constitution and laws of the United States frequently makes it “difficult to determine which of [his] innumerable ‘functions’ encompassed a particular action.The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority. In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose.” [S. 4, (b.1)]

Na danke dafür, denn nun:

"The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."[S. 5, (b.2.i)

Und noch lustiger, Trumps Versuch, den heiligen Vize zu erpressen (S.5,(b.2.2)). Habs mal abgekürzt zwecks Lesbarkeit:
"The indictment next alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators “attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results[...] The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct. The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity."

Auch abgefahren, das hier (S. 9, (B)):
"The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive authority therefore do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress."
Was soll da alles (nicht) drunter fallen?

Den Rest erspare ich mal aus Platzgründen. Ein echter Albtraum in Schwarz und Weiß trotz der vermeintlichen Differenzierung.