Trump Adviser Goes Ballistic on Judge Chutkan Decision
Donald Trump has been dealt some significant blows by what appears to be biased judges in the January 6 case and the New York civil fraud case.
While the headlines with Judge Engoron are getting most of the headlines, Judge Chutkan just made a ruling that has everyone’s ears up right now, especially Trump adviser Stephen Miller.
Miller went nuclear after Chutkan ruled that Trump is no longer entitled to immunity for acts committed as president after leaving office.
Presidential Immunity is covered in Article II, Section 3.
This article has come under legal scrutiny before regarding actions by President Johnson and President Nixon.
In its simplest terms, precedents state that when the president is performing his official duties, he has immunity for “purely executive and political” powers.
Since the initial ruling, it has been deemed that subpoenas can be served to a sitting or former president, but now the question arises if Trump’s comments and actions during the January 6 rally were part of his presidential duties or not.
Some say they were, as he was fighting to ensure our elections were not corrupt, while others say it was a personal rally, therefore his actions are not covered, which is more or less the take that Judge Chutkan stated, but there was a caveat.
Chutkan ruled, “The court cannot conclude that our Constitution cloaks former Presidents with absolute immunity for any federal crimes they committed while in office.
“Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”
She concluded, “If the specter of subsequent prosecution encourages a sitting President to reconsider before deciding to act with criminal intent, that is a benefit, not a defect.”
Now, notice she does not say actions that are outside the purview of the office, which presents a serious legal issue, which I will get to after Miller’s comments.
After her ruling, Miller stated, "Many likely don't appreciate just how radical and dangerous it is to revoke the doctrine of presidential immunity. In effect, this gives any single far-left judge, jury, or prosecutor a veto over the actions of the democratically elected president.
"The fact that such a persecution may initiate after a president has left office is irrelevant: future presidents will now exercise their office within the narrow confines of this anti-constitutional, anti-democratic framework.”
So, based on Chutkan’s ruling, any actions of a president could be prosecuted after leaving office, like, perhaps, Obama mistakenly ordering a drone strike on a wedding party in Yemen in December 2013, where 12 innocent people were killed.
Miller touched on this, basically saying that legislators will now dictate what actions are deemed to be part of the office and which are not, which would, in this case, put a Republican president at the mercy of the opposing party if they held the majority.
This is a very slippery slope that Chutkan has led us down, and I am very curious to see if her ruling stands up before the Supreme Court, which is clearly where this is eventually headed.