The Court is hearing a case today questioning whether Presidential Immunity is absolute. Trump claims that anything done as President is subject to immunity.
Basically, a President is above the law.
Trump says that a President requires immunity so that he can do his job without fearing prosecution for bad decisions.
But if George Bush brought the nation to war based on lies that he was aware were false…..should he be subject to prosecution?
If a President accepts bribes to influence his presidential decisions, should he be prosecuted?
If a President uses his powers to overturn a lawful election, should he be prosecuted?
Trump says that a President requires immunity so that he can do his job without fearing prosecution for bad decisions.
Bad decision just shows intent and motivation but
its the action that defines whether it is a crime that can be prosecuted.
This is how Trump gets himself into trouble with
statements of absolute immunity. Its all self serving. It makes it hard to in defending him. Difficult for the right wing judges because they know they cannot go with absolute immunity for the president in a criminal trial.
Any person who did what Trump did would be prosecuted and most likely found guilty.
The closest example that can be compared is with Nixon. He resigned. His buddies went to jail
Just because he is president does not give him absolute immunity and it clear that it is talking about civil cases.
Trump was declared the loser, he has no presidential rights to do the things he did
But to make a statement concerning criminal immunity in the same context puts his fellow right wing judges in a bind
So the Nixon case is the hurdle for the current Supreme Court to retain some level of respectability
Nixon would have went to jail but I believe Ford did pardon him which saved him.
Trump dilemma is Biden is not going to pardon him.
So Trump is desperate and will they the Supreme Court save him.
Which really is a bad ideas as it sends the wrong message