All posts tagged "gitmo"

Donald Trump is claiming that presidents need “total immunity” from being indicted for criminal acts. This is a cornerstone of Trump’s defense against the federal election interference case against him. No matter if his actions as president “cross the line.”

Trump, of course, is no longer even president of the United States. But let’s accept Trump’s argument. Once one does, it’s only logical to conclude that President Joe Biden can do whatever he wants while he’s still in office.

And that’s why Biden should not wait or hesitate — and send Trump to Guantanamo Bay, precisely because Trump, who faces 91 felony counts across four criminal cases, is a grave threat to our nation and its security.

That’d be fine, right?

Trump did, after all, show highly classified documents to people who weren’t supposed to see them. He tried to overturn a presidential election. He inspired an insurrection. He allegedly obstructed justice, falsified documents and statements and cooked his business books. Heck, he allegedly bullied his way into a “Home Alone 2” cameo. Send him to Gitmo. Put that orange jumpsuit on him. It’ll match his skin tone. Problem solved. Biden can serve his second term without that distraction bothering him anymore. You can’t do anything about it because Biden has total immunity.

Sound good?

Obviously, Biden should not do this. But here lies the folly of Trump’s legal strategy — one that serves only to protect him above all else. Just imagine an America where presidents could get away with countless abuses of power and not face any consequences for those actions. Trump’s lawyers are literally arguing — in a bid to save Trump’s skin — that a president could have his or her perceived political enemies killed by SEAL Team 6 so long as Congress didn’t previously remove that president from office.

If presidents can do whatever they want, why is Trump so hung up on Joe Biden being “crooked?” Being crooked is apparently a presidential right!

So when do presidents have actual immunity, and when should they have immunity?

ALSO READ: Racism, fascism and cruelty: Donald Trump’s New Hampshire performance in nine quotes

Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, tells Raw Story that presidents have immunity from civil cases that relate to official acts, but that’s about it. She says she doesn’t agree with Trump’s argument that presidents should have “total immunity.”

“It’s nonsense. I think that legal precedent tells us quite clearly that you do not have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution,” Levinson says.

Many of these questions were considered during the Nixon years, Levinson says. There was a Supreme Court case that ruled presidents are immune from those civil cases, and there was a decision where it was decided that former President Richard Nixon didn’t have executive privilege that would allow him to withhold his Oval Office recordings.

“Nixon accepted the pardon from Ford. I think that would also indicate that Nixon thought there was potential criminal liability,” Levinson says.

ALSO READ: Deadline demolished: Illinois congressman violates federal financial disclosure law

Giving a president total immunity from criminal prosecution would “undercut” the idea that no person is above the law, Levinson says. Though Trump says presidents won’t be able to do their job if they don’t have total immunity, because they’ll constantly be worrying about getting indicted for their actions, Levinson noted we had 44 presidents before Trump who never needed total immunity to get the job done. The argument that presidents do need such legal protection is bogus, she said.

“History indicates that, in fact, you need a president who allegedly engages in this type of behavior to be here — where you have a president facing criminal indictment,” Levinson says.

The immunity question could end up before the Supreme Court, but it might not. It’s currently being considered by the D.C. Circuit. Levinson says she doesn’t think the Supreme Court is going to want to weigh in on this one.

“I think the Supreme Court is just going to let the D.C. Circuit decision stand. The Supreme Court is already looking at the obstruction statute,” Levinson says. “They’re already looking at Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for ballot access. I don’t think they want anything to do with this.”

It doesn’t seem likely the courts will decide that presidents should have total immunity. It would put the president above the law and open the door to presidents abusing their power in ways we can’t even imagine.

Trump’s not exactly great at coming up with strong legal arguments, though, and this will accomplish his main goal of slowing down the legal cases against him.

In the meantime, Biden may want to check his maps of southern Cuba.