I just finished reading the full opinion and the Trump immunity case, and I believe it is even worse than reported: first of all, although the majority gives lip service to prosecuting private presidential acts, but not official acts, a good lawyer will be able to argue that anything done by a sitting president is an official act, and hence get a full hearing on that act prior to trial, which will be appealable prior to trial.
Secondly, the court ruled that evidence of official acts not only cannot be prosecuted, but such evidence cannot be used as background evidence in a prosecution of a crime for private acts. Given its complexity, the DC case could not be tried for a number of years because there will be further pre-the trial appeals. Moreover, the opinion will embolden the Florida federal judge to declare almost everything Trump did as an official act, and make that case unprosecutable.
Moreover, the concurring decision by Judge Thomas raises questions as to whether or not the appointment of special counsel was illegal in the first place, which will probably cause the Florida federal judge to seriously consider making such a ruling dismissing the whole indictment or carving it up so much that the case cannot be tried. What this decision means for the state cases is hard to analyze, but the defense can tie the prosecution up in knots because of the legal complexities.
(Visited 32 times, 50 visits today)
Click here for the full Insider Index
In a recent article published on Insider NJ, political analyst John Hayden shared his perspective on the President’s immunity decision. Hayden, a seasoned commentator on legal matters and political affairs, offered a detailed analysis of the implications of the President’s decision to assert immunity in the face of ongoing investigations.
According to Hayden, the President’s decision to claim immunity raises significant questions about the limits of executive power and the balance of power between the branches of government. He argues that while the President may have the legal right to assert immunity, doing so could set a dangerous precedent and undermine the principle of checks and balances that are essential to a functioning democracy.
Hayden also points out that the President’s immunity claim could have far-reaching consequences for the ongoing investigations into his administration. By shielding himself from scrutiny, the President may be able to avoid accountability for any potential wrongdoing, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability in government.
Furthermore, Hayden highlights the potential impact of the President’s immunity decision on public trust in government. If the President is perceived as using his immunity to evade accountability, it could further erode public confidence in the political system and undermine the rule of law.
Overall, Hayden’s analysis offers a thought-provoking perspective on the President’s immunity decision and its implications for the future of American democracy. As the investigations into the administration continue to unfold, it will be crucial for lawmakers, legal experts, and the public to closely monitor the developments and ensure that accountability and transparency are upheld.
