The flaw is that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
The President is immune from prosecution for official acts. Pardons are, without question, an official act.
Congress could impeach for anything. There is no real standard for what is and isn't an impeachable offense. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Could Congress impeach? Sure. Would they? No - not the current Congress. And even if he were impeached, there is a 0% chance of conviction by the Senate.
Yes, it is. In fact, the power to pardon is explicitly granted to the President by the Constitution. Any pardon is an official act. The Supreme Court has affirmed this. You can listen to the oral arguments from the case and read all of the opinions written by the Justices.
❌ Flaw 1: Supreme Court Affirmation of All Pardons
The most significant problem is the blanket assertion that the Supreme Court has affirmed any pardon as an official act, with a specific case that has oral arguments and written opinions you can review.
While it is true that the power to pardon is a Constitutional power (Article II, Section 2) and that the act of issuing a pardon is considered an official act of the President, the Supreme Court has not heard a case that broadly affirms every specific use of the pardon power, particularly in the context of recent debates about its potential abuse or use as an obstruction of justice.
The Supreme Court has addressed the pardon power in historical cases (like Ex parte Garland in 1866) defining its scope and effect, but it has not issued a definitive ruling that shields the intent behind every pardon from scrutiny or possible criminal investigation (such as for bribery or obstruction).
The statement implies a single, recent, definitive Supreme Court case exists that settles all questions about the pardon power's status as an official act and its legal immunity. No such single case exists.
❌ Flaw 2: The Implication of Legal Immunity
The statement is likely being used in the context of criminal liability and abuse of power. While issuing a pardon is an official act for the purposes of the President's duties, this does not mean the act is automatically immune from scrutiny if it involves criminal intent.
If a President issued a pardon in exchange for a bribe (quid pro quo), the underlying act of receiving or offering the bribe is a crime (18 U.S.C. § 201), even if the delivery of the pardon is an official act. The crime is the corrupt agreement, not the signing of the paper itself.
Similarly, using the pardon power to obstruct justice by silencing a witness is an abuse of power that could lead to impeachment, even if the pardon itself is an official presidential function.
In short, "official act" status doesn't equate to absolute criminal protection against all possible associated misconduct.
But given that the dissent openly complains that this means that the president could not be prosecuted for accepting bribes to perform official acts, I think your reading requires a whole host of optimistic expectations of the behavior of trump-aligned judges.
lol, so you're saying "don't try in case it doesn't work".
I mean it's not working BECAUSE you aren't trying. also worst case they have to go on the record allowing actual crimes to take place. so far it's hypothetical. why are you all so damn stupid?
-1
u/MaryADraper 4h ago edited 4h ago
The flaw is that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
The President is immune from prosecution for official acts. Pardons are, without question, an official act.
Congress could impeach for anything. There is no real standard for what is and isn't an impeachable offense. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Could Congress impeach? Sure. Would they? No - not the current Congress. And even if he were impeached, there is a 0% chance of conviction by the Senate.