Agreed.
I posted this on August 21 that reposted an August 5 post:
-PJ
Interesting that the strategy memorandum linked in the article appears to have been taken down. However, it is still available in the Wayback Machine: Strategy Memorandum Against the Trump IndictmentsI posted something similar on August 16:
I believe that when the Framers put the clause into Article I Section 3:Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law....that they expected Presidents to be honorable people who became "fallen" during the term of their office, otherwise they would fault themselves (We the People) for putting them into office in the first place. The expectation would be that the rigors of the campaigns within the states to choose Electors to the Electoral College and the stature of the Electors within their own states would result in a President who was thought to be beyond reproach.To that end, I can see an argument that indictments of Presidents would be limited to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that resulted in impeachment, not everyday criminal acts. Even the modern Department of Justice acknowledges that allowing a President to be charged for crimes during his term would impede the President from carrying out his duties.
Once a President leaves office, he has become a national figure of the highest degree. There will be people who like the job he did, and there will be people who detest the job he did. Nevertheless, enough people in the country selected this person to become President specifically to do the job that risks having various segments of the population becoming displeased with the decisions made, while others will be pleased with outcomes in their favor.
I would like to see an argument that once leaving office, Presidents should enjoy a degree of immunity from retribution via the legal system intended to punish a President in ways that were not possible while the President was in office. I think the Constitution provides a good guide to this "Presidential Immunity" that former Presidents should only be indicted for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," and should enjoy immunity for all other lesser crimes.
"High Crimes" would, of course, include things like murder, income tax evasion, and illegal representation (e.g., foreign agents, etc.), but speech, assembly, petitioning for redress of grievances, private contracts, etc., should be off limits from political retribution via the courts.
Former Presidents cannot get a fair trial of any kind, anywhere, simply because of the job that the nation tasked them to do, and the enemies they may have made while doing it.
Obviously I agree, especially with the post-term immunity suggestion.
Allowing them to say that it’s anything goes and they can charge him for things that occurred in office ESPECIALLY things that resulted in an impeachment with no conviction has now resulted in what everyone avoided thru mutual agreement for the previous 240 years.