hap0206, Yeah, every single constitutional lawyer agrees the decision greatly expanded presidential immunity, at least i haven't found one who doesn't agree, yet you give us old news in an effort to cover up your mistake.
"The Constitution of the United States grants legislative immunity to members of Congress through the Speech or Debate Clause, but has no explicit comparable grant for the president.[7] Early American politicians, including those at the Constitutional Convention, were divided as to whether such immunity should exist.[8] However, courts historically found that the president had absolute immunity from any personal damage liability for acts undertaken in the course of his duties.[9] The first suit brought directly against a president was Mississippi v. Johnson (1867), in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Andrew Johnson could not be sued as the actions in question were discretionary.[10] Spalding v. Vilas (1896) affirmed that federal cabinet officers had absolute immunity for actions "more or less" within the scope of his duties; Barr v. Matteo (1959) extended this to all federal executive officials.[11]"
Maybe you can come up with a constitutional lawyer who doesn't agree with all the others on the common belief as stated above.
Oh, of course there was the "time will tell" position
Broad Reflections on Trump v. United States [...] The Court faced a slew of novel questions about the scope of presidential power. Many people seem to have a strong opinion about whether the Court’s recognition of fairly broad presidential immunity was “right” or “wrong.” But the standard sources of constitutional law do not permit a definitive answer to that question. And on the ultimate question of whether the Court’s decision was wise, only time will tell. [...] "As I wrote a few months ago, the “idea that the first prosecution of a former president could be done quickly without serious collateral litigation about the impact on the presidency was always a fantasy, even taking into account the ugly abuses of power alleged in the indictment.” And more broadly, it has been a fantasy for many years now to think that courts and prosecutors can purge the nation of a law-defiant populist demagogue. Only politics, not law, can do that." https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174697492
Anyway, let's see if you are willing to not keep making the same erroneous comments you make over and over and over, here.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
