One What is interesting is how the court defined this case.
The court determined that the only question to be addressed is whether former presidents enjoy “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts they allegedly engaged in while in office.” Language communicates in many ways.
If the court had recognized the possibility that the answer would be “yes” (e.g., yes, he could order Seal Team 6 to kill his opponent; yes, he could order his opponent to be killed for reelection, ), the court would have had to deal with ancillary issues such as: “Did the president perform an official act?? ” or “What is the scope of official acts?? ” Only if the answer is “no”—affirming the unanimous decision of Judge Tanya S. Chutkan and the D.C. Circuit—no further investigation is necessary. The presence of just her one question tells you where the court is headed.
Additionally, if the court’s order is limited to consideration; formal In that case, Special Counsel Jack Smith would almost certainly argue that President Trump’s attempt to overturn an election, which has no constitutional role, should be considered “unofficial” at the trial level. It is possible to claim the above. That would allow Mr. Smith to proceed to trial. In other words, if the Supreme Court wanted to exonerate President Trump, it could simply ask:Will the president be immune from criminal prosecution? ”
Furthermore, the court limited the issue to “former presidents.” Again, this creates a disadvantageous situation for Trump. After all, the president cannot be indicted. or after that His presidency will make him king. As lower courts have held, no court has come nearly as close to this conclusion.To think that the president can I never have Holding him accountable for his actions, no matter how egregious and whether he has left office or not, holds a single class of individuals above the law: criminal former presidents. will produce. It might garner the support of right-wing, authoritarian-leaning Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., but it’s hard to imagine that President Trump could muster five votes for such an outrageous proposal. betray.
Whether or not the trial begins and ends by Election Day, we will undoubtedly make a decision that addresses his only defense. ”You will not be punished for official acts. Interfering with my own election was a public act. Therefore, I will be free! ” At the very least, if my analysis is correct, voters will know heading into the election that this cannot become law. Voting for him would be allowing someone on trial (or already on trial) for a serious crime to dance his way into the White House.
Meanwhile, please pay attention to the ruling on whether President Trump is disqualified based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution suggests he should, but anyone who thinks the court will rule that way, especially after not a single justice intended to vote him out at oral argument. There aren’t many. how But the court’s rules now have important implications. For example, if the Supreme Court does not dispute that January 6 was an insurrection, then the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that he incited an insurrection, the Maine Secretary of State’s decision, and the January 6 House The Special Committee’s conclusions will remain unchallenged. . Refusing to exempt Mr. Trump from the conclusions of these institutions and voters will speak volumes about how the justices evaluate Mr. Trump’s conduct.