Here is my take. I understand that SCOTUS had to say that some kind of presidential immunity exists and then formulate some test for it. And despite that fact that the Constitution makes ZERO mention of anything like “presidential immunity,” an activist Court can always find stuff in the Constitution that isn’t there if they try hard enough. And they did. I get it. It makes sense at some level to say a president can’t be sued civilly or criminally for certain things they do.
The SCOTUS went way overboard here, though. They went WAY further than the appeal asked them to. This ruling sets a dangerous get out of jail free pass for future presidents – one possible future president in particular, one who has a track record of crimes and criminal behavior and shows no signs of rehabilitation or ever being deterred. Trump is reading this as a license to destroy that he and everyone else previously did NOT know he had until today.
This SCOTUS opinion will eventually kill this case. It just guts the evidence the prosecution
has. The prosecution is prohibited from even presenting evidence of Trump’s motives. Has anyone ever heard of a case where the prosecution can’t put in evidence or even argue about the defendant’s motives? I’d say it’s almost impossible to get a conviction of any intent crime without evidence motive. In a related move, they eliminated from evidence every public statement Trump made regarding the election on the grounds that “public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the other perimeter of his official responsibilities.” They also tossed all evidence of Trump leaning on the AG and DOJ (INCLUDING evidence that DOJ lawyers told him this stuff was illegal) and all evidence of leaning on Pence. Not just charges on that evidence (that weren’t filed anyway), but all EVIDENCE of them. According to the SCOTUS, normal rules of evidence do NOT apply to presidents: “The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard.” WTF? SCOTUS got way out in front here – basically making evidentiary rulings with new special rules for Trump on an evidentiary record that they ALSO complained was inadequate for making such rulings. If there was improper bias in this Opinion, it was here. Awful stuff.
For what little is left, the SCOTUS has REQUIRED that the district court conduct an evidentiary hearing (a trial within a trial) to determine what factual allegations in the Indictment (and probably other evidence the prosecution has) are ones that Trump has criminal immunity for, AND the SCOTUS has said that it will review (probably after the appeals court again) any decision on the evidentiary ruling at the district court, BEFORE any
trial. That will take two years at a minimum. First the hearing, then the appeal, and the second SCOTUS ruling on this, which could remand all this stuff again, won’t be until July 2026 at the earliest.
Very disappointing. The SCOTUS really wanted to shut this case down, much more so than I would have thought even yesterday. Trump needed to be tried publicly on everything he and his co-conspirators did regarding the 2020 election. I don’t see that ever happening now.
One thing I’m wondering though, is whether the prosecution should now go after the rest of the fraudsters, like Eastman, Cheese, Boris Ephstyn (Russian), Kraken, Giuliani, etc. Does immunity pass on to them because they conspired with the President? How? Put them on trial just to show American citizens what Trump did and can’t be prosecuted for. That’s just preserving the record of what went on for future generations.