The oral arguments at the Supreme Court today were fascinating. They are looking far beyond just this specific case as they realize they will be setting precedent. There were many interesting moments and great questions by the justices but I found one in particular to be pretty damning to the government’s case.
A justice asked the government’s solicitor that if the President does not have immunity, could not President Obama be prosecuted for killing American citizens with drone strikes.
Shockingly, the solicitor said the DOJ had decided that the murder statues did apply but he was not prosecuted due to the “public authority exception.” I’ve certainly never heard of that and wonder why the statues President Trump supposedly violated don’t have a similar clause.
As the linked article states, the public authority exception is where “the defendant contends that [[if] [although]] [[he] [she]] committed the acts charged in the indictment, [he] [she] did so at the request of a government agent. Government authorization of the defendant’s acts legally excuses the crime charged.”
On its face, the government’s argument essentially means Presidents are free to kill.
Yes, the US government argued today that a President can commit murder without repercussion.
It was a shocking moment to say one President was immune while another is not, especially regarding murder. The solicitor did not do himself any favors in that moment since he essentially argued the President does in fact have immunity in certain cases.
From the arguments, I do not feel the Supremes will rule that a President has absolute immunity, but there will be some dividing line. Commentators seem to agree they will make a decision clarifying what actions carry immunity and remand the case back to the district court. Similarly remanded decisions on average delayed a case by about eight months. So if the Supremes even come down even partially on Trump’s side, all of the DC, GA, and FL cases against Trump would be pushed out far past the November election. Personally, I’d be good with that outcome as it is measured and I do not think tying up a Presidential candidate for a democratic election in legal red tape is admirable or fair.
Let the people vote.