A lot of hysterical hyperbole by media “experts” on the Trump immunity case by people who obviously have not read the 119 page Trump vs United States opinion. According to them the ruling will allow Trump to do anything he wants if elected, including arresting opponents or even murder. Utter nonsense. The Court said a president (not just…
A lot of hysterical hyperbole by media “experts” on the Trump immunity case by people who obviously have not read the 119 page Trump vs United States opinion. According to them the ruling will allow Trump to do anything he wants if elected, including arresting opponents or even murder. Utter nonsense. The Court said a president (not just Trump) has absolute immunity when exercising core duties vested in the Constitution and “presumptive” immunity for actions to the “outer perimeter” of executive authority for all other actions. This second category can be challenged if a president’s action is believed not to be “official” executive business. The court expressly said there is no presidential immunity for unofficial actions of a president, which would include arrest or murder of political opponents. There are many instances in American history when presidential decisions were considered by their successors to have been unlawful but Trump was the only former president to be charged criminally in 248 years. Subsequent administrations may have believed Truman’s dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was illegal. President George Bush invading Iraq “to prevent Sadam Hussein from using non existent weapons of mass destruction.” President Lincoln suspending “habeus corpus” during the Civil War. The Supreme Court said the threshold issue for a court is to determine is if the president’s action was within his official duties or unofficial action. In the Trump case neither the district court or the DC Court of Appeals considered the specific actions to determine if the action was within the protected “outer perimeter” of presidential authority. Jack Smiith and other prosecutors must now produce evidence that Trumps actions were not covered by the presumption of immunity enunciated by the Court. Good luck.
A lot of hysterical hyperbole by media “experts” on the Trump immunity case by people who obviously have not read the 119 page Trump vs United States opinion. According to them the ruling will allow Trump to do anything he wants if elected, including arresting opponents or even murder. Utter nonsense. The Court said a president (not just Trump) has absolute immunity when exercising core duties vested in the Constitution and “presumptive” immunity for actions to the “outer perimeter” of executive authority for all other actions. This second category can be challenged if a president’s action is believed not to be “official” executive business. The court expressly said there is no presidential immunity for unofficial actions of a president, which would include arrest or murder of political opponents. There are many instances in American history when presidential decisions were considered by their successors to have been unlawful but Trump was the only former president to be charged criminally in 248 years. Subsequent administrations may have believed Truman’s dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was illegal. President George Bush invading Iraq “to prevent Sadam Hussein from using non existent weapons of mass destruction.” President Lincoln suspending “habeus corpus” during the Civil War. The Supreme Court said the threshold issue for a court is to determine is if the president’s action was within his official duties or unofficial action. In the Trump case neither the district court or the DC Court of Appeals considered the specific actions to determine if the action was within the protected “outer perimeter” of presidential authority. Jack Smiith and other prosecutors must now produce evidence that Trumps actions were not covered by the presumption of immunity enunciated by the Court. Good luck.