If a prosecutor could make a case strong enough to go to trial, so be it. I want people of power second-guessing if they are treading to close to "the line".

So how about indicting Biden on a conspiracy to commit murder charge for his role in providing weapons to the Israeli government in Gaza? Or a conspiracy to commit fraud because he supported student loan forgiveness programs that ultimately got shot down by SCOTUS? Or even Obama on a conspiracy to commit obstruction of a federal proceeding if he met with Eric Holder to discuss not acceding to GOP demands for records or testimony?

Maybe we want Presidents second-guessing themselves when their actions will clearly violate a law that was specifically intended to constrain their actions. But some criminal charges - especially criminal conspiracy charges - can encompass tons of otherwise lawful conduct if there's a potential crime anywhere by anyone.

Presidents are front and center in a lot of difficult, contested, and often disputed issues. The reason immunity for government officials exists in the first place is so that they can make difficult choices on behalf of the public without being paralyzed (or even just unduly conservative) by fear of personal liability. That's why Jack Smith would be immune from countersuit from Trump if Trump ended up being acquitted in charges - because we want prosecutors (as government officials) to be willing to prosecute wealthy powerful people without being afraid that they'll spend the rest of their lives (or resources) embroiled in personal litigation with them afterwards. We want them to be diligent about making a good faith effort to stay within the law, but to be absolutely immune once they do - rather than having to go through the ordeal of proving themselves for years after the fact.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.