calbear93 said:
tequila4kapp said:
It is a big decision with weighty issues. I am still processing.
One area where I'm troubled: I'm generally on board with the notion that a President has immunity for official acts. But this opinion feels incomplete because the alleged criminal conduct was for the President's own benefit. That is a big distinguishing factor, IMO. Obama had an American citizen killed overseas, believing him to be a terrorist, without a trial. Official act for the benefit of the country's national security. Immunity seems completely appropriate. This is different.
Generally, I would caution non-lawyer types to be cautious and suspicious of the characterizations your normal news sources provide. It is a complex ruling. The normal summaries we get from news sources cannot really do us justice for adequately explaining it and its implications. For example, there are whole hosts of issues where SCOTUS rightly sends this back to the District Court. This decisions is clearly positive news for Trump but he is definitely not out of the woods by a long shot.
I don't think the court held today that election interference and treatment of classified information after leaving the office are official acts. The lower courts will have to make that determination.
What is exempt is prosecution gaining access to confidential and classified discussions that a president has with his cabinet to gather evidence for another crime. While maybe not here, allowing that to proceed would lead to fishing expedition that will create a big hole for future administration to find causes to imprison the prior president and chill political process.
Generally, we are in agreement on this topic. But note they did rule that his threat to fire Barr was an explicit executive function fully protected by immunity. As the Dissent notes, that was allegedly an act in furtherance of a greater conspiracy, not just a regular old executive event. Or in my terms, it was an official act done for personal gain, which I see as a distinguishing characteristic.
And once I dip my toes in those waters then I choke a bit on the other concepts like access to official records and discussion with aids, and not looking to intent. As a matter of law I think they missed the mark by not accounting for this component.
So maybe my version would be: 1) presidential immunity exists for official acts done in the furtherance of official duties; 2) prosecutors can claim an official act was done for personal gain; 3) lower courts can make evidentiary and other rulings related to that claim; 4) A president has Interlocutory relief (see Barrett's concurrence); 5) to the extent resolving those issues interferes with the President's execution of his duties...I don't know what, but I might have gone down this path if I were SCOTUS.
