1) You read none of this, just like you clearly didn't read 1 page of the Hur report. I was able to prove that with a few simple keyword searches.
I posted a brief recap of Trump's argument below, that's more your speed. It centers around OFFICIAL ACTS. Obviously the President walking into the street murdering someone isn't an official act...and both you and Judge Pan clearly understand this.
2) Judge Pan is a hyper-partisan Biden appointee, once again legislating from the bench by asking that ridiculous question. And her asking a question proves nothing, except her bias.
3) Obama is not a red herring, it's precedent. He ordered the killing of an American citizen without due process. That's much worse than anything Trump has been accused of. Does the President not have an official duty to question the results of such a suspicious election? Democrats certainly did from 2016-2020. Remember Russiagate?
So no, you don't get to ignore Obama's drone strike. He was trying to kill someone the CIA identified as a terror threat. He shouldn't be tried and neither should Trump.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/explaining-the-trump-immunity-case-at-the-supreme-court
The case from Trump’s team
In August 2023, a grand jury
indicted Trump on four charges related to his actions after the 2020 presidential election. On Feb. 6, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
ruled that Smith could move forward with a trial.
“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” concluded a unanimous three-judge District of Columbia Circuit appeals court panel.
On Feb. 12, the former president’s attorneys
sought a stay of the decision form the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump’s stay petition asked the Court to consider if Trump had undertaken official acts “performed within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” The petition also argued that Trump already had been tried for the alleged Jan. 6 acts during his Senate impeachment proceedings, and he could not be tried a second time.
On Feb. 28, the Supreme Court granted a stay and limited the arguments in the case to the single issue of presidential immunity.
Trump’s team has asked the Supreme Court to look closely at the immunity question. “The panel opinion … like the district court, concludes that Presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts does not exist
at all. This is a stunning breach of precedent and historical norms. In 234 years of American history, no President was ever prosecuted for his official acts. Nor should they be,” they argued. Trump’s attorneys also claim that grand jury indictment against Trump was based on “five types of conduct, all constituting official acts of the President.”
😂😂😂😂
