If the CJ believes there should be POTUS immunity for core Art. 2 powers like appointments, there's an easy answer to the concerns in his hypo about bribery. It can be analogized to Speech or Debate immunity.
You can't prosecute a Senator for voting on a bill, but you can 1/
You can't prosecute a Senator for voting on a bill, but you can 1/
https://twitter.com/lee_kovarsky/status/1783620118615847319
Prosecute him for taking a bribe to vote a certain way. With bribery the crime is the agreement to act in exchange for the bribe. So prosecutors can prove the "deal" - but they can't introduce evidence of the Senator actually voting. And that's OK, because 2/
Carrying out the deal is not an element of the crime and is not necessary. Prosecutors don't need to prove it to convict. The crime is the deal itself.
So if POTUS had immunity for core official acts the same would be true. You could prosecute for a bribery agreement w/out 3/
So if POTUS had immunity for core official acts the same would be true. You could prosecute for a bribery agreement w/out 3/
Putting on evidence about the actual appointment, which would be subject to immunity.
So IF the CJ thinks there should be immunity for core Art. 2 official acts, the bribery hypo shouldn't stand in his way. 4/
So IF the CJ thinks there should be immunity for core Art. 2 official acts, the bribery hypo shouldn't stand in his way. 4/
Of course, that doesn't help explain why the framers, who explicitly included legislative immunity in the Speech or Debate clause, didn't include such immunity for the president.
As a couple of the liberal justices pointed out, that absence seems significant. 5/end
As a couple of the liberal justices pointed out, that absence seems significant. 5/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
