Subject: Re: SCOTUS finds immunity for offiical Pres acts
I brought up Obama as an example of somebody who a) would fall under this ruling b) could potentially be targeted for political reasons and c) wasn't Trump.

So let's play the game the other way around. What are the actual Jan 6 charges against Trump?

1. Conspiracy to defraud the US via lying and trying to get legitimate votes discounted.
2. Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
3. Obstruction and attempted obstruction of an official proceeding.
4. Conspiracy against rights

Count 1.
Is lying within the core constitutional duties of a president? I'd say no. So no absolute immunity. It is within the ordinary duties of a president? Maybe. Sometimes lying to the people is necessary. Is it in this case? Probably not. I'd guess that Trump has a presumption of immunity, but that presumption is likely to be overcome. On the voting part, is overseeing elections part of the core duties? No. Part of the ordinary duties? Again, maybe. Running elections is generally within the domain of the states, not the federal government. The exception happens when the Justice department goes to court and manages to show a violation of one of the voting rights acts. Then we get some federal oversight of voting that might fall under the president's purview. But most (all?) of the states in question were not under federal oversight, so I don't see checking on elections as an ordinary presidential duty. So no presumption of immunity.

Count 2.
This gets an added wrinkle from the decision a few days ago. That one basically requires obstruction via documents or other tangible items. I'm going to assume that problem is overcome because of the fake elector documents even if influencing Pence has to get dropped. So is conspiring to do an illegal activity a core constitutional duty? No. Is it within the circle of expected duties? No. That leaves it as a personal act and not immune.

Count 3.
This one is mainly tied to the riot itself. I'm guessing it gets dropped because of the previous decision. So we don't need to look at it.

Count 4.
Intimidating and threatening voters isn't anywhere even close to official duties, and neither would conspiracy to do so. No immunity.


With that out of the way, the fact that it seems to work for both Obama and Trump doesn't make this a good ruling. It just puts unnecessary obstacles in the path of seeking justice. One of the foundations of the justice system is that justice delayed is justice denied. People (both the accused and the people of the state/nation on whose behalf the prosecution works) have the right to timely justice. Adding these requirements to the process does nothing but slow the process down.

--Peter