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
It's kind of crazy that Autumn Jackson, who threatened to tell the press that Bill Cosby had raped her mother to conceive her, wound up getting 26 months in federal prison.
Just a little less than he did.
Oh I missed this but apparently her conviction was also reversed. The jury was never told that her request for money had to be wrongful to be criminal, only that it had to accompany a threat to his reputation.
36 pages deep, you find COUNT ONE of the complaint against Facebook, which is that it is violating the First Amendment.
Count Two: Also please say section 230 is unconstitutional and don't use any words that rhyme with landing
And as far as legal claims go, those are it. It was extremely considerate of the former President to file a lawsuit that can be dismissed in a one page order.
Quite literally promised him immunity so he couldn't plead the 5th in a civil case, then tried to innocent kid whistle their way out of the agreement as soon as it became politically inconvenient.
It honestly reminds me of Heath v. Alabama, where Georgia offered a man life in prison if he'd plead guilty to a crime, and then conspired to use the plea to have him executed in Alabama because he crossed state lines to commit the crime.
In a lawsuit that claims a teacher was so offended by a student's failure to recite the pledge, or write down its words as part of an assignment that he began to mistreat the student, it's a bit rich for a judge to write that "folks are just so easily offended these days"
The teacher gave a long, weird speech about communism and sharia law and sex offenders.
Then, the student says he was just sort of consistently a jerk to her, and when she complained, he played a bunch of weird Christian music in class and stared at her.
And he kept doing this stuff even though the administrators were asking him not to.
ADM valued a grain plant at 4 million dollars in 2016. But shortly after Sonny Perdue was selected to be the Secretary of Agriculture, it agreed to sell it to him for 1/16 that price.
Perdue then had his company, AGrowStar held in trust as an ethics measure. The company was sold for 12 million dollars, which included a now significantly more valuable grain plant.
Perdue did not disclose the sale because it was held in trust.
The trustee then chose not to keep any of the money from the sale of the company, instead, simply giving it to Perdue. Perdue also did not disclose that.