A Reminder
Immunity edition.
As we are forced to continue to ponder arguments in favor of substantial immunity from criminal prosecution for the US president, allow me to hearken back to the days of yesteryear wherein the leader of the Republicans in the US Senate said the following:
…impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice.
Impeachment, conviction, and removal are a specific intra-governmental safety valve. It is not the criminal justice system, where individual accountability is the paramount goal.
Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were – and this is extremely important – “still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice.”
Put anther way, in the language of today: President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn’t get away with anything yet – yet.
We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.
Just a reminder that McConnell argued to the American people that removal from office and barring Trump from future office via the impeachment process was inappropriate because, among other arguments, the proper remedy was via the courts.
And note the bolded words above.
Note, too, that the argument made by Trump’s lawyers before the Supreme Court is that the only way to criminally prosecute a president is if he or she is first impeached and convicted in the Senate.
If we could harness the power of these contradictions, we could likely power a modest-sized city.
One of the reasons, no doubt, why Trump hates McConnell. But the latter will vote for him regardless.
If carrying out the duties of the presidency requires immunity from criminal liability, then it follows the US presidency is, at least in part, a criminal enterprise.
I fail to see how such a declaration would be defensible in any moral sense.
@Kathy:
Not at all! You missed the core of Alito’s reasoning during oral argument, which is that criminal prosecution in the US is so arbitrary and capricious that anyone could be convicted of anything, regardless of their guilt or innocence! The presidency need not be an actual criminal enterprise, because presidents could be convicted by their political foes regardless of the facts!
It was a rather strange position for a Supreme Court justice to take, but that’s exactly where he went.
Thank you for this, Dr Taylor. Of course, if I’m being charitable, the Senator was speaking from what was commonly understood at the time. A time before all the Republicans had to retroactively make Trump look good again by any means necessary, including this immunity concoction.
@DrDaveT:
“criminal prosecution in the US is so arbitrary and capricious that anyone could be convicted of anything, regardless of their guilt or innocence”.
In other words, the presidency is not a criminal enterprise, the judiciary is. Good to know that, Justice Alito.
@DrDaveT: “It was a rather strange position for a Supreme Court justice to take, but that’s exactly where he went.”
IIRC, Alito was a prosecutor. This is a confession.