Again, Yoo at no point shows how this harms the Presidency. Some state people asked for Trump's tax records. He claimed absolute immunity. He lost.
But Yoo doesn't seem to think Trump should have won that?
Did opponents of Trump use litigation in an "unprecedented way" to stop his agenda? Maybe for a very specific definition of "unprecedented," but we literally just had our third SCOTUS opinion about the ACA joined by every conservative AG in the country.
Ok, so allowing state prosecutors to investigate the President for state crimes undercuts the vitality of the Presidency.
Is there any limit here?
Does Yoo think the President should be able to, for instance, kill and eat a baby on camera, pardon himself federally, and be fine?
But of course, it wouldn't be just the President who had baby eating privileges. He could open up a baby eating restaurant, and his compatriots should also, in the name of executive power, be immune from prosecution?
Note how Yoo pivots to Hunter Biden, who is CURRENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR TAX EVASION.
Where is Yoo's piece about how that investigation undercuts the presidency?
So Yoo says Congress should have taken the constitutionally courageous step of preventing all investigation of a President, for all time.
You might ask, where does the Constitution say that's a thing that should happen?
No answer here.
I don't think there's anything in the text or history of the Constitution that exempts Presidents, or people who know Presidents, from being prosecuted for crimes that are not part of their federal duties.
As for whether Presidents will be dragged into state level trials, I wouldn't hold my breath. Anyone who's tried to get a federal agent to testify at a state court knows it's a Sisyphean task.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 1938, a Polish Jew living in Paris, Herschel Feibel Grynszpan, learned that his family had been arrested and deported.
He entered the German embassy, claiming to be a spy with valuable information, and shot an embassy official, Ernst vom Rath.
The Germans, of course, claimed that this was an enormous outrage--just part of the historical plot of the Jews to destroy the Aryan race.
They planned a series of pogroms in response, to be carried out by government agents out of uniform, encouraging the public to join in.
Initially, he was to be tried in Paris. Once war began between Germany and France, the lawyer asked for an immediate trial, figuring that an acquittal was likely. But as the German army approached, Grynszpan escaped.
In The Florida Star v. B. J. F, 491 U.S. 524, 526 (1989), a rape victim sued a newspaper for printing her name, arguing that it violated a Florida law protecting her privacy.
Even though the name of a rape victim is substantially less newsworthy than the name of a public official, the Supreme Court of the United States said that publishing that name was protected by the First Amendment.
When you say we don't have "jurisdiction" over them you have to come up with some tortured definition where if you can imagine a law does not apply to illegal immigrants (or people here on a visa), that means no jurisidiction.
But one problem with that is that children are also exempt from many laws, adult criminal responsibility, the draft, etcetera, and yet no one would argue that they aren't subject to American jurisdiction.