A sitting president has immunity from prosecution and civil liability in general.
Then it starts to get complicated.
Some argue that there is absolute immunity - shorthand definition for that would be "total immunity for everything that happens while the president is a sitting president. Doesn't mean they cannot be prosecuted eventually if you remove them through impeachment.
But the law is somewhat unsettled. And then there differences between criminal and civil immunity that have to be sorted out.
And then there is the question of whether the immunity is just while in office or even while they are out. The argument being that you can't make a president a sitting duck for ticking time bombs to just get hammered legally for everything he did in office. And the counter argument that you can't just give him a get out of jail free card for everything. And so the arguments go.
In general there is at least the agreement (and some case law) that a president has "qualified immunity." meaning that he has immunity for any actions that are reasonably related to the fulfillment of your presidential duties, even if you do not agree with them. So, for example you cannot be prosecuted for ordering the killing of an American citizen, which Obama did when he killed an American terrorist. But if Obama had ordered the killing of his chef because he was porking his wife, he could be prosecuted. That is the general lay of the land and the issues.
So Trump - if he cannot win on the absolute immunity argument- wants to at least win on the "qualified immunity" argument and then successfully convince a jury that his "involvement" in the electoral process was part of his duties as president to ensure fair elections rather than corrupt meddling.
As I said earlier, at a minimum he is just making argument to delay his trial until after the election.
Like dat.
Last edited:
