I'm just saying it's wrong and will almost certainly be overturned by SCOTUS.

Simply put, the presidency is afforded powers under the Constitution that place the president above the law that applies to everyone else. The most obvious example of this is warmaking. If you or I went and killed a suspected terrorist, for example, we would rightfully be prosecuted for murder. Should the same standard apply to the president? Of course not. Thus, he is IMMUNE from prosecution for that official act, whereas you and I would not be immune because we are not acting under the auspices of an office. (If you want to argue otherwise, then you need to address the chilling effect that lack of immunity would have on any president carrying out his official duties. If every president faced the threat of politicized lawfare -- as exemplified in the multiple Trump prosecutions -- they'd be afraid to do anything lest some unhinged political adversary try to jail them for it.)

Thus, the question as to whether a president is immune from prosecution for at least one official act has been answered. This brings the second question, which is -- okay, if he is immune from prosecution for the commission of one official act, then why not all official acts? And the answer is obviously all or nothing, meaning he -- really, it's the office itself -- is immune from prosecution for all official acts, as there is no inherent limiting factor regarding official acts.

Then, the final question would be -- okay, so what is considered an official act? Does a terrorist hit qualify? Does directing your AG to do something qualify? Does making a speech qualify? Does voiding billions in contractually obligated student loans qualify? Does mandating experimental medical treatment qualify? Etc.

Here, there can be debate, of course, but the court will most likely decide this criminal immunity question just like they did the question of civil immunity, which is that the president is immune to the "outer perimeter" of his office, meaning virtually everything remotely official. A president would not be immune, for example, from prosecution for strangling his wife, as that is clearly not an official act. But he would be immune, for example, for ordering a terrorist attack, providing direction to a subordinate in the executive branch or giving a speech.

(I should mention that a final question here is how does impeachment play a role in this question. In other words, does immunity get pierced when a president is impeached/convicted? Also, MUST a president be impeached/convicted prior to facing prosecution for an official act?)

[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 04/25/2024 12:03PM]