Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty
Supreme Court Grants Trump Limited — But Not Absolute — Immunity Over 2021 Coup Attempt
I joined BBC Radio Ulster’s William Crawley on Tuesday to explain how the Supreme Court’s six conservative Justices — three of them appointed by Donald Trump — have put him above the law and beyond accountability.
Listen to Discussion from 37:39
On Monday, the Court’s 6-3 decision proclaimed immunity for Trump’s “official” acts, even if they might be criminal or were part of his attempted coup to overturn the 2020 Presidential election.
While the Court said Trump could still be prosecuted for “unofficial” acts, it referred the four-count felony indictment from Special Prosecutor Jack Smith to a US District Court for consideration. At the very least, the ruling will push any trial beyond November’s Presidential election — precisely the outcome that the Trump camp has been seeking for months.
The other contributors are Trumpist activist Greg Swenson and Kristin Kaplan Wolfe, the Deputy Chair of Democrats Abroad UK.
[Editor’s Note: An example from Justice Clarence Thomas — who ruled in the Trump immunity case despite a serious conflict of interest and ethics questions — of the convoluted legal reasoning for the protection of Trump by the Supreme Court’s conservative judges.]
Clarence Thomas explains that the President is not above the law: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/presidents-immunity-supreme-court-what-matters/index.html
“In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President “is not above the law.” But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. … In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law.”
However, the Supreme Court’s conservative judges, including one appointed by Trump, still said some of his actions fell into private conduct:
“Sorting private from official conduct sometimes will be difficult—but not always. Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. … In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. … a President has no legal authority—and thus no official capacity—to influence how the States appoint their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct.”
[Editor’s Note: The “absolute immunity” in Trump’s case has nothing to do with “difficult decisions involving the use of military action which may result in civilian deaths”.
1. The POTUS is not immune from unofficial acts deemed “private conduct”.
2. If he does commit a crime, he can still be impeached and removed from office by Congress. He can then be prosecuted in the courts.
The absolute immunity means that former and future presidents cannot be prosecuted by American and international courts for taking difficult decisions involving the use of military action which may result in civilian deaths.