Image for post
Image for post
The tiny president

The latest legal idiocy to ooze out of the addled minds of lawyers working for the so called president is that he is entirely immune to all legal process, including criminal indictment, while he holds the office of president of the United States.

This is nonsense on very tall stilts.

One esteemed observer claims that the inherent powers of the executive require the conclusion that the Constitution, in conferring those powers on the president, also forbids indicting a sitting president. This is less nonsensical than the current claim by the current so called president’s current lawyer in the current case, but it is still nonsense. In Trump’s case, one could argue whether he has ever fully occupied the office in a meaningful sense.

Our esteemed observer does make the important point that, any president who acts in a way as to deserve indictment thereby deserves impeachment, which is correct. But Trump’s lawyer argued recently in federal court that a sitting president would be immune to prosecution even for shooting someone as long as that president remained in office.

He made this argument as part of his claim that the district attorney for Manhattan may not perfect a subpoena for documents from Trump’s accountants, the same firm that was the target of a subpoena by the House of Representatives, in a case that is still wending through the appeals process, after both trial and appeals courts easily found that the accounting firm must comply with the subpoena, the opposite of the position Trump’s lawyer continued to argue in the more recent case involving the Manhattan district attorney.

Of course the president should have the same opportunity as any other litigant to make his arguments before the court, but the underlying principle is as simple and obvious as it can be: the presidency is an office that exists only because our founding law, the Constitution, creates it, so occupying that office cannot put the individual who so occupies beyond the operation of the law.

Anarchists at least offer an intellectually consistent and honest argument for eliminating all existing law enforcement and own that position. No known anarchist has ever run for president of the United States and likely would not win if they did. Trump and his addle pated lawyers are, at best anarchists of convenience. Especially for a man whose fortune, if he has one, depends on real estate, which only exists because of the rule of law, to take an anarchist position at all is characteristic of Trump’s stupidity.

One wonders if he will continue to believe that a sitting president should sit immune to criminal prosecution if one were to start a fire in a Trump property deliberately. If the president is immune to prosecution for shooting someone, why not arson?

The claim is now abroad that we need to enact multiple statutes, the details of which remain undetermined at the moment, to try to prevent further abuses of executive power after Trump leaves office. Congress did so after Nixon left office, but Trump has illustrated vividly that we need more.

Nancy Pelosi’s current ridiculous obsession with ensuring that indicting a sitting president is legally permissible is an idiotic distraction. That is irrelevant. Just impeach.

Other reforms are necessary and likely much discussion of the topic will occur after the present presidential emergency passes.

But first, we need to slough off the dead skin that is Donald Trump.

Written by

Uppity gay, Buddhist, author, historian.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store