I share former Rep. Liz Cheney’s frustration, even outrage, as she wrote in a NYTimes op-ed, that it appears the Supreme Court will not rule swiftly enough on Donald Trump’s immunity claim that he can stand trial before the 2024 election on charges related to January 6, 2021. “It cannot be that a president of the United States can attempt to steal an election and seize power but our justice system is incapable of bringing him to trial before the next election four years later,” she wrote. (Hat tip, HCR.)
These two Lincoln Project ads dramatize the principles before the high court.
Military Coup: “Trump’s lawyer just argued a Trump military coup could well be an official act that is immune from later prosecution in front of the Supreme Court. What do you think?”
Assassination: “The fact that we’re debating before the Supreme Court whether a president can be a dictator speaks to how dangerous and dark a path Donald Trump has lead America down. In November we must decide if we continue down it.”
Yet listening to part of the oral arguments, I could not help but validate concerns that declaring a president has no immunity from prosecution whatsoever could open up a hornet’s nest. There needs to be a clear delineation between a president acting officially in the public interest and privately for his own selfish interests. As David Rivkin and Elizabeth Foley argued in The Wall Street Journal…(see my Substack piece for the remainder of this article, which includes comments from readers):
Teaching History's Slender Threads, Including 'What Ifs', Almosts, Alternatives and Turning Points 