1 Comment
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
RooLondonSounds's avatar

Honestly I feel that George could have easily retained 90% of his commentary unchanged yet decide to arrive at a completely opposite and pessimistic opinion…

Although the case is named Trump V. United States, the question presented to the SC is generic, referring only to “whether a former president enjoy[s] presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

So unless the SC can elect to not answer the question provided and instead restrict the scope of their answer to very specific acts of the very specific president that has led to this case, then they’re surely going to fudge it, right?

I can’t see them wanting to get into the business of clarifying / defining what “official acts” are, either generally or specifically (the former I can’t see them wanting to take responsibility for, and the latter risks setting a precedent for a patchwork of individual future cases coming to them).

Surely it’s in their interest to confirm that it’s the responsibility of Congress to decide what acts are official / not offical, and exercise its constitutional power of impeachment accordingly (with referral to the Justice Dept for prosecution if believed to be criminal).

I think the Trump lawyer is smarter than he is being given credit for, constantly referring to the impeachment process, and that every outlandish question he is asked (“could a president assassinate his rival?!”) in fact strengthens his argument that the SC should do nothing except confirm the process that should take place before prosecution of a former president can occur. Even George should like this outcome because it would help protect “good” former presidents from “bad” current Attorneys General :)

Basically, I wouldn’t be surprised if the only concrete judgement of the SC is to effectively confirm that the Justice Dept cannot prosecute former presidents for crimes committed whilst in office unless they were successfully impeached by Congress and referred for prosecution. I.e. Trump’s immune.

Please let me know if anything I’ve said is factually wrong, highly unlikely, or too cynical to be taken seriously…

TL;DR - I wish I could be as optimistic as George seems to be on this, but I’m really struggling here…

Expand full comment