I’m not Republican.

deleted by creator

You’re welcome, glad you could put more words in my mouth.

Right!

Except the kid is across the world, and we don’t know them very well. Last we heard, they were one of the worst children in the world. Instead of asking the neighbors to pool money to build a boat to go save this kid, you go to all your neighbors and steal that money.

Fuckin’ a logic.

Not wanting to fund a war doesn’t mean they hate Ukraine or it’s citizens.

The US has agreements to defend their allies. Ukraine isn’t an ally.

Source?

You bring up an excellent point. America doesn’t have to provide further support, because they aren’t single handedly funding Ukraine.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

Not everyone who disagrees with war or your position on it is deep throating Putin.

You have no idea what Putin’s goal is so don’t pretend as if you have some deep insight. The EU can fund its own wars.

The EU can fund its own wars?

Ukraine should fight back. Americans shouldn’t fund war. See how easy this is?

Sound about right. No need to fund this slaughter.

The president has always enjoyed immunity for performing official duties. Obviously.

Before prosecuting a president you have always had to stop and determine if what was done was in an official capacity or an unofficial capacity. It’s been like that for 200 years. That’s why you can’t charge bush 1, bush 2, or Obama with war crimes. Furthermore, the court made their stance on Trump quite clear. They did not dismiss any of his cases. If they were in his pocket, and he had this absolute immunity as you claim, all cases would be dropped.

Folks, it’s quite clear what the president can and cannot do. He can pardon, appoint, dismiss, and instruct the military to take actions and has full immunity to do so. Which of course the president must have full immunity for those actions. If you or I send a missle to kill people we would get charged. The president would not.

Moreover, presumptive immunity leaves the door wide open. The ruling says that any action taken with presumptive immunity may be challenged and that the burden is on the government to show that the action was not within the presidents duties, and failed to uphold the constitutional oath taken. If the president blatantly breaks the law that burden of proof would be childish to gather. The president is not above the law, and never was.

Trails court does. You obviously didn’t read the ruling. We have nothing to discuss.

In 1982 SCOTUS made a decision on this:

“We hold that the petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.”

The media, the Democrats, but I repeat myself, have all been lying to you. This has always been the case. Nothing has changed.

The Constitution bestows the power upon the presidential office onto the president. Not SCOTUS.

Incorrect. Breaking the law is never an official act of the office, and therefore, cannot be protected.

I wonder, what do you think the ruling changed? What can the president do now that the president wasn’t able to do before?