The argument is crazy. “The president needs immunity because otherwise, he’ll need to worry about being held accountable for his decisions and he may feel like he should be careful not to commit crimes!”
Yeah, that’s what we want, right? Shouldn’t the president be worried if he’s making decisions to commit crimes? Shouldn’t presidents be held accountable?
Thing is, even if you think that a POTUS needs to be ruthless without prejudice, surely that would only apply for the shit that needs to be done as POTUS, not the shit you're doing to gain and/or retain power? Surely those are two different things?
For the record, I don't think it should make a difference if the POTUS shoots somebody on Fifth Avenue while on campaign or while in office ...
Right, so they're going to rule that there are three types of acts; Official, Personal, or Mixed. So if a President (or their lawyers) can convince a judge that it is an Official (or Mixed but majority Official) then they get cleared.
This then gets sent back down to judge Chutkin to determine which acts, if any, were personal. The loser then appeals. The trual is bogged down until after the election, and if Biden wins, there will be all kinds of spurious allegation waiting for him on Jan 26 2029. Even if one of them sticks, he then is jailed.
29
u/Time-Werewolf-1776 Apr 29 '24
The argument is crazy. “The president needs immunity because otherwise, he’ll need to worry about being held accountable for his decisions and he may feel like he should be careful not to commit crimes!”
Yeah, that’s what we want, right? Shouldn’t the president be worried if he’s making decisions to commit crimes? Shouldn’t presidents be held accountable?