Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
... in his preposterous conduct related to the 2020 US presidential election before he is liable to either be sued for defamation (or whatever the equivalent is in the USA) by election officials, or prosecuted for attempting to interfere with / corrupt / subvert a legitimate vote / the democratic process?
Obvs. I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly no expert on US law, but to me some of his conduct seems to be, not just absurd & outrageous, but verging on the outright unlawful:
Michael Bromwich, who served as the Justice Department inspector general from 1994 to 1999, suggested that Trump’s threats against Raffensperger and Germany could violate federal law that prohibits efforts to deprive voters of a fair election.“His best defense would be insanity,” Bromwich tweeted, adding: “The entire call is astonishing. The bullying, the threats, the insults, the credulous embrace of discredited conspiracy theories. Like a crime boss, Trump occasionally says that all he wants is the truth. But he doesn’t - he wants the win.”
I'd be interested to know whether a president of the USA has particular 'privileges' (in terms of having the freedom to say things or make allegations without fear of prosecution or other legal action) which cease when he leaves office; and if so, whether Trump is smart enough to realise this or even to heed warnings about this from his advisors?
Over the years oversight of the President and restrictions on his/her powers has been chipped away. In part, this was to allow the President to be able to ignore international laws and treaties.
It's possible that this gives Trump loopholes in terms of his behaviour.
Basically a President can do and act as they please, provided the Senate/Congress don't push back on it. So the question is, are the other branches of Government interested in prosecuting a President?
History would suggest not.
Thanks, Wren. But I was thinking more of an equivalent to our 'Parliamentary privilege' whereby, as I understand it, on the floor of the House of Commons (and only when speaking on the floor of the House of Commons) an MP can say what he likes or rather, can make whatever allegations he likes, without risk of prosecution or other legal action for slander or defamation.
Might be wrong, but I think not only does Parliamentary priviledge in the UK extend beyond the floor of the HoC, it also isn't an absolute right, only where it can be authoritively established as necessary for proceedings in Parliament, e.g. expenses declarations were recently found not to be covered by parliamentary priviledge.
Presidential immunity goes much further but is qualified too (Watergate): https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-3/presidential-immunity-from-judicial-direction
That link suggests he's not immune as president from stuff done before he had that office.
He can be impeached, of course. See Wren's comment for prosecution upon impeachment/leaving office for actions done while in office.
It's open season on anything he says after he leaves office...it never bothered him before.
It seems logical to me that he can still be impeached after leaving office for an offence committed within office
Hypothetically, suppose he shot someone at 11:59 on the 20th - he must still answer to justice
And the bonus is that fewer people will care about the has-been, so less objection
Nixon was let off because his offences were relatively minor, though obviously wrong
I've wondered about this
1) First, I thought they'll prosecute Trump because it's the right thing to do
2) Then I thought, he'll escape justice because of the Nixon precedent (pun not intended) & the consequences among Trump's supporters of a prosecution
3) But now, he just can't escape. There are hundreds of lawsuits against him: personal ones, federal ones, but there will be State ones for tax evasion which the new President cannot override if he wanted to
So, I think Biden will let it simmer, see what happens, and decide later about Federal crimes. Let the bastard sweat
I think that Trump is about to get it shoved right up him by the Congress - 25th Amendment (removes him immediately) and Impeachment (stops him standing again) - and further talk of stopping any self-pardoning. There are a sufficient number of Republicans sick of Trumpism in both Houses to make these stick.
He is not as clever as he thinks, as are the people who surround him. I think that the Republicans now realise that this has gone waaaay too far, and that the GOP is crippled - are they going to persist with Trump's unhinged base, or return to a semblance of a grown up Party? Romney could be the cheerleader for this.
Watch out for leaks of documents, video, audio, photographs from those on the inside of Trumps circle seeking to avoid prosecution and curry favour with the new reality.
Trump is toast.
What I was more particularly thinking of was his accusations (without a shred of evidence) that various public officials had knowingly acted dishonestly ('fraudulently') in deliberately fiddling the count / voting figures for the 2020 presidential election.
He has named specific people, and accused them of, not just incompetence, but of committing specific criminal offences. That sounds like libel / slander (dunno which, if it's a tweet) and if I were one of those officials, I'd want to sue him for defamation because my professional reputation would have been jeopardised.
It would be as if, in my local newspaper, I published a claim that 'In the last general election, Mr Fred Smith, the returning officer for the South Hereford parliamentary constituency, deliberately falsified the result by deliberately hiding / destroying 500 perfectly valid votes'. That is of course libellous, and I would never get away with it. Mr Smith would be fully entitled to sue me personally and sue the newspaper.
Although it would never happen because no newspaper would ever be so foolish as to publish such a blatant libel. Tweets, however, as we are all acutely aware at present, are not subject to the same editorial discipline.
Jeez, Titus, how dumbed down do you need it to be?
Probably they can sue as it’s probably outside of what’s necessary for parliamentary procedure but probably not til after his term, but pre -trial stuff can start, probably.
We might know soon as dominion are talking about suing for saying their voting machines are rigged.
I'd personally like to see Trump impeached if only so Mike Pence gets to be the president who stood for three days.
You must log in to post.
