Presidential immunity: Money and power

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to contribute as much money as they like to political candidates.

The takeaway: If you have lots of money, you can give it to people who have lots of power so they can use their power so you can get more money.

(And, of course, "Most States Have Tax Codes That Are Rigged To Benefit The Wealthy: Report," Molly Redden, HuffPost, Jan 9, 2024)

Today, an appeals court is hearing arguments on whether presidents are immune from prosecution for crimes. The same topic was raised yesterday in a Georgia court. The issue may go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Where, of course, there's a corruption scandal.

What the takeaway would be, if presidents are deemed immune: If you have lots of money, and the thing you want done for you is very illegal, no worries as long as you give the money to the president, who can never be prosecuted for the thing you're asking him to do, because it isn't illegal for him to do it.

See

Trump’s immunity appeal sends a stark message about his plans for a possible second term, Stephen Collinson, CNN, January 9, 2024.

Collinson writes:

"Given the 45th president’s oft-stated belief that he had near omnipotent powers when he was in office – and that he still might be entitled to them – the history-making spectacle about to unfold is not that surprising."

"Not surprising" is relative. But that's a heavy antecedent: a president's claim that he was, and continues to be, nearly omnipotent. It takes a lot to make the consequent spectacle unsurprising.

Abby Phillip says for CNN (January 9):

"Raindrops on roses, whiskers on kittens, immunity on murders? Donald Trump lists a few of his favorite reasons why he's not a criminal. At this point, Trump is a collector of defenses like some people collect Pokemon. But there's almost too much to count at this point. And trust us, we tried.

He says he's immune, presidents can't obstruct justice. His intent wasn't corrupt. The case is moving too fast or moving too slow. It's an unfair venue. The judge is biased, and so are the clerks. The jury is too. He's never met her. He doesn't know her. She's not his type. It was his personal account, political persecution, witch hunt, perfect phone call, the deep state. It wasn't an insurrection. He wasn't notified that it was a crime. His lawyers advised him double jeopardy. The speech was peaceful. The students weren't defrauded. The Presidential Records Act. He was too busy. They were his documents. They're declassified. They aren't even classified at all, the First Amendment and the Fourth, the Fifth, the Sixth, and Tenth Amendments too."

Update

This is an actual NYT headline (January 10). Yes, Trump's lawyer did argue in court yesterday that a president can't be prosecuted for anything, even (specifically) ordering the military to assassinate a political rival, unless first the House were to impeach him and the Senate were to convict him. This is bad.

The NYT's description of this claim as "bold" is also bad.

Turns out, the first week of January, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas said he'd shoot people if President Biden would let him. He said on a podcast: “The only thing that we’re not doing is we’re not shooting people who come across the border, because of course the Biden administration would charge us with murder.”
— Governor Says Texas Isn’t Shooting Migrants Because Biden Would ‘Charge Us With Murder’
“We are using every tool that can be used," Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said on a podcast. Nick Visser, HuffPost, Jan 11, 2024

On February 21, 2024, Fox News aired an event in which Trump said: "We’re going to take over Washington, D.C. We’re going to federalize. We’re going to have very powerful crime, and you’re going to be proud of it again."

During April 25, 2024 arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court:

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked [Trump's lawyer Jack] Sauer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?”
“That could well be an official act,” Sauer responded.
* * *
Justice Elena Kagan offered a few more hypotheticals to Trump’s attorney, including if a president would be immune from prosecution if they sold the country’s nuclear secrets to a foreign power.
“Likely not immune,” Sauer said, before adding a qualifier: “Now, if it’s structured as an official act, he’d have to be impeached and convicted first.”
“How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” Kagan asked.
“I think it would depend on the circumstances,” Sauer said.