LOL. Wrong! Immunity means immunity. You are making up crap as you go along.
The constitution specifies that he can be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors committed with his core powers, no immunity protects him from those.
You failed to understand the ruling:
Regarding Presidential Immunity —for the first time in American history— the Supreme Court, solidly relying on a whole bunch of previous cases about related presidential issues, announced a brand-new three-tier immunity test:
Tier 1: Total Immunity for Constitutional Acts. “The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.”
This blessed tier is only for when a president exercises explicit authority under Article Two of the Constitution. Things like negotiating treaties, issuing pardons, and directing military operations. As you can imagine, this is a small, well-defined tier. [and doesn't exempt High Crimes and Misdemeanors, taking a bribe to do any of the things covered is not covered]
Tier 2: Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts. The Court declared that “the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
In short, if the President acts officially, as President, that act is immune—but a prosecutor can still proceed if they can show criminalizing that type of conduct will not hinder the Presidential office.
Tier Two answers the Democrats’ most deranged temper tantrums.
Prosecuting Presidents who order the military to assassinate (i.e. murder) their opponents would not harm the Presidential office, because presidents are not supposed to murder people, and it wouldn’t hinder the Presidential office to criminalize murder. Duh.
Tier 3: No Immunity for Unofficial Acts. “The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's
unofficial acts. The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions.” For example, the Court said a President has zero immunity when he acts as the leader of his political party, or when pursuing his personal interests.
Actually, assassinating political rivals would probably fall squarely under Tier 3 — enjoying no immunity at all.
As you can see, this three-tier system neither turns Presidents into kings —not Burger King, impotent King Charles, or Solomon— nor places presidents above the law. Certainly not Trump. The decision only resolved a couple of the worst counts in a single Trump case. As for the surviving counts involved in this particular appeal (Judge Chutkan’s case), the Supremes bounced most of the counts back down to her, to apply the new test and then get back to them.
Clueless, low-information Democrats are wailing that the Judges anointed a Presidential King by creating a three-tier test under which —wait for it— Presidents can be prosecuted for crimes. Democrats are acting like this is a revolutionary
improvement of the Presidential position. But that, like nearly everything else partisan Democrats say, is a lie.
What was the rule before the Supreme Court issued its decision? Well, before Trump, no president was ever prosecuted for a crime. Not for droning an Iraqi wedding. Not for illegal wars. Not even for jaywalking or running lawn sprinklers on a Tuesday.
Presidential prosecutions never ever happened.
Don’t miss this: before Trump, presidents obviously enjoyed de facto total immunity. The unspoken rule that everyone followed was that nobody can prosecute the President, or even a former President.
During the period the
de facto total immunity rule reigned, the Supreme Court never
had to address Presidential immunity. There were no cases; that’s how absolute the immunity was. But
now that the Court has crafted a de jure (legal) rubric, Presidents who do illegal things can be prosecuted. They can now be prosecuted much more easily, in fact. Just not for nuisance claims, like the creative, trumped-up claims brought against President Trump, such as for notating his check stubs wrong.
Let’s do a little thought experiment. Evidence shows President Obama was involved in the now-discredited Russia Dossier matter, which was used as a false predicate to spy on the Trump campaign for partisan political purposes. Evidence suggests Obama
knew the Dossier was fake, purchased by the Clinton campaign. Yesterday’s new 3-tier test provides a
clear procedure for prosecuting Obama for those very serious allegations.
In other words, the High Court incinerated
de facto Presidential immunity, and replaced it with a clear
de jure prosecutorial process. Former and future Presidents susceptible to more serious crimes than Trump’s are now fair game.
The irony! By bringing all these silly, creative claims against President Trump for keeping a few boxes of “classified documents,” and because his bookkeeper wrote the wrong thing on a check stub, the Supreme Court got an unprecedented opportunity to end forever the silent, implicit protection previously enjoyed by every other previous President. That
de facto absolute immunity is gone, never to return.
And now it’s open season on serious crimes committed by Presidents.
If President Trump wins the election, this decision provides exactly the right tool his DOJ needs to prosecute the last twenty years of Presidential malfeasance and abuses of authority. It almost seems like Trump planned it this way. In hindsight, it couldn’t have gone any better for Trump
in the big picture. When Trump’s DOJ brings its first charges against Biden and Obama, the media cannot wail about it being “unprecedented.” He’ll just be following the law.
Beyond those long-term benefits for President Trump, the decision also placed a massive granite capstone on out-of-control Presidential authority. All future Presidents, Trump included, must now consider potential criminal liability under the new
Trump v. US standard. The new rule will make Presidents much more careful when acting outside their Constitutional authority, like when they mandate vaccine shots or something, just as a random example.
So … it’s not even so much that
Trump won.
The American People won.
More at:
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/dev...-july-2-2024-c
Andrew Jackson was not prosecuted for not enforcing treaties with the Native Americans. Prosecutors cannot be prosecuted for not prosecuting because they have immunity but they can be removed from office. Judges can be removed from office for not following their duty, but they cannot be prosecuted for it because they have immunity.
The Court just changed all of that, see above.
Your ridiculous "malfeasance" standard which is NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION let's you set up an imaginary and arbitrary standard where you in your own mind get to pick and choose what is impeachable and what is not.
It is in the Constitution, it's the meaning of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
It's not my standard, it's a long established legal standard and it's not arbitrary at all.
The constitution didn't give YOU that power. It gave it to the Senate.
No, it most certainly does not.
The Senate is given sole power to run the trial, that is all.
My "problem" is that I'm actually faithful to the constitution and you are not.
No, you are not, I am.
And you continue to put your problem on full display for all to see for themselves.
You full of enough feces to run green the Sahara desert. But thank you proving you have absolutely no principles at all and no understanding of the law whatsoever. Going by your stupid argument, securing the border is a "core constitutional" duty which means he CANNOT be criminally prosecuted for it! But your ready to impeach him. I bet you'd probably also try to criminally prosecute him for what he could not be criminally prosecuted for. 
