Trumps lawyer is arguing that a president should have immunity for accepting bribes and assassinating rivals, among other things, such as selling our nuclear secrets to a foreign power. He would have to be impeached and convicted first on the nuclear secrets issue. Would that mean that Biden could lawfully assassinate Trump?
I nearly fell out of my seat when I heard that. I wanted a Justice to ask him if that meant that a President who ignored immigration laws and let 10 million foreigners illegally enter the United States can be prosecuted after he leaves office?
-PJ
I’d have to read more, but I don’t think that Trump’s lawyers are arguing that there should be absolute immunity for actions not related to actual governance.
My understanding is that they are saying that what a President does in furtherance of fulfilling his Presidential duties - like protecting elections from sabotage by enemies foreign and domestic, as his oath requires - is and must be protected. If a President is doing his job, he should not have to fear criminal prosecutors going after him.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any place where it says that taking bribes, assassinating rivals, and selling nuclear/military secrets (to our enemies (as both Mr and Mrs Clinton documentably did) is a Presidential duty.
What they are accusing Trump of is personally trying to subvert an honest election when in reality what he did was clearly intended to STOP subversion, which is a Presidential duty, as per the oath of office.
Actually, it is also the duty of anyone who takes that oath. Anybody making it easier for foreign and domestic enemies to subvert elections is in violation of their oath. That includes all the prosecutors and judges whose treason is showing blatantly.
IOW, I don’t think Trump’s attorneys are arguing for the “absolute immunity” that the press wants us to think. I think they are arguing for total immunity for a President doing his job.