2 weeks Ago By Idaho Statesman
I have a question for those planning to vote for Donald Trump: Are you frightened at the prospect of a president who does not seem to care about following the law, especially now that there seems to be no realistic way to hold him accountable? Of course, I understand that conservatives favor his policy positions, while liberals prefer those of Kamala Harris. The country is fairly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, and . But perhaps because I am a lawyer — and one who focuses on constitutional law — I am asking a different question of those who are considering or planning to vote for Trump.
Do you worry about having a president who repeatedly has shown that he will violate the law? A president who knows that, once in office, he can act with impunity? Opinion Trump knows there no longer are any realistic checks on his power if he’s once again in the White House. He was twice impeached by the House of Representatives, but it made no difference. He knows that it is inconceivable that two-thirds of the Senate will convict him.
And if Republicans keep control of the House, it is likewise hard to imagine that it would impeach him again. On July 1, , held that a current president or former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for anything done while carrying out official duties under the Constitution or federal laws. The court said there is even a presumption of absolute immunity for acts that are at the outer perimeters of presidential power.
The court made clear that a president ordering the Department of Justice to engage in political prosecutions as retribution against rivals would be protected by absolute immunity — something Trump has repeatedly said he wants to do. Indeed, under the court’s reasoning, a president could order the military to assassinate political rivals. And that, too, would be immune from criminal prosecution.
The court also reaffirmed that the president cannot be civilly sued for money damages for acts taken in using the powers of the office. This lack of accountability for the president should be troubling no matter who will be in office. But it should be of paramount concern when considering a candidate who has shown no compunction about breaking the law.
Trump was twice found by juries to have sexually abused E. Jean Carroll and then to have defamed her. A jury in New York convicted Trump of 34 felony counts in authorizing money to be paid to Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about their sexual affair and then falsifying business records to hide this so it would not harm his 2016 presidential campaign.
A state court judge also found that Trump and his business repeatedly engaged in fraudulent business practices and imposed a $450 million fine. And then there are the pending indictments against Trump: He faces trial in Georgia state court for attempting to undermine the results of the 2020 election in that state, including by asking Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” some 11,000 votes. He was indicted in Florida for taking highly classified documents — in clear violation of federal law — and then attempting to cover up the crime.
He was also indicted in federal court in Washington, D.C. for crimes involved with attempting to subvert the 2020 election.
Collectively, all of these instances show what seems obvious: Trump has no compunction about violating the law. And that’s why I ask those voting for Trump, is it that you disagree with my concern? Or do you think what Trump offers as president outweighs the risks of his being president with no meaningful checks to hold him accountable? Some prominent conservative Republicans have answered this question by announcing that they cannot vote for Trump, including former Vice Presidents Dick Cheney and Mike Pence, both of whom have impeccable conservative credentials. Those who say that they cannot vote for Trump include a long list of individuals who served in his first administration, including Mark Esper, who served as Secretary of Defense, John Kelly, Trump’s White House Chief of Staff, and H.
R. McMaster, U.S.
National Security Advisor. In 2016, while running for president, Trump declared, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK? ..
. It’s, like, incredible.” This November’s election really is about whether this is true.
This is a country founded on the rule of law and the fundamental principle that no one — not even the president — is above the law. Will we now elect a president who cares so little about the rule of law, at a time when there is so little to check his actions once in office? Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and professor of law at the UC Berkeley School of Law..
