To be honest right upfront, I had been confused about the prosecuting of an elected official for something that he does while in office. Attorneys prosecuting Donald Trump in an obvious example of vendetta often get on their high horse and proudly proclaim that “no one is above the law!” While this kind of statement plays well with the liberal media and the uninformed reader, is appears to be a statement that is “true, true, but unrelated.”
True … no one is above the law. However, there is already a mechanism for adjudicating possible criminal activity by the President. It is called ‘impeachment.’
From The Epoch Times:
The former president had filed a motion to dismiss the case on Oct. 5, claiming the absolute immunity conferred to a U.S. president as outlined in the ruling of Nixon. v. Fitzgerald. Prosecutors argued that such an argument put President Trump above the law, as no one, even the president of the United States, should escape prosecution for serious crimes. The indictment against President Trump alleges crimes that depend on the state of mind, that he sought to defraud through “dishonesty, fraud, and deceit” in the aftermath of the 2020 elections, while President Trump maintains that he sought to investigate allegations of fraud in the 2020 elections.
In the new response, attorneys argued that the prosecutors misunderstand the scope and purpose of presidential immunity.
From Trump’s lawyers:
“To allow the president to be sued for his actions in office would ‘require the President to hesitate at every turn, conscious of the very real threat that one of many hundreds of prosecutors around the country may one day question his motives and seek to imprison him for his actions as President,’ they argued.”
They also argued that preventing criminal prosecution for official acts does not put the president “above the law,” because the proper process to indict a president should come from Congress.
Trump’s attorneys continued:
“The text of the Constitution—namely the Impeachment Judgment Clause—straightforwardly supports Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution absent conviction in the Senate. A convicted party is liable to criminal prosecution. Thus, a President who is not ‘convicted’ is not liable.”
“As the Supreme Court held in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the President must have the ability to make decisive—and often unpopular— decisions regarding matters of public concern.”
To me it is still obvious that the 2020 Presidential election was ripe with fraud … fraud in multiple states. To prosecute Donald Trump because he wanted to look into these fraud allegations in the 2020 election is merely a vengeful vendetta, the goal of which is to prevent Mr. Trump from running again.
Recall that these fraud allegations could have been addressed by the Supreme Court after the election, but SCOTUS ducked their responsibility and refused to address this issue … consequently the country is still paying for their reticence.
Hopefully this case will be thrown out otherwise the country may well be having to ask the Supreme Court if it has heard of ‘Nixon vs. Fitzgerald!’
11/9/23