• November 13, 2019

SULLUM: Trump’s audacious immunity claim - Odessa American: Opinion Columnist

e-Edition Subscribe

SULLUM: Trump’s audacious immunity claim

Sullum is a senior editor for Reason magazine and a syndicated columnist.

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, November 7, 2019 4:30 am

Donald Trump’s desperate attempt to block a New York grand jury subpoena seeking his tax returns, which he once promised to publicly release, makes you wonder anew why he is so keen to prevent anyone from looking at those records, even in secret. But the case also raises the more momentous question of whether presidents have an unqualified right to quash such demands as long as they occupy the White House.

Trump’s view, as U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero summarized it last month, is that “the person who serves as President, while in office, enjoys absolute immunity from criminal process of any kind.” Marrero rejected that claim as “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.” And on Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed.

The subpoena seeking Trump’s returns from his accounting firm is part of a probe by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who is investigating hush payments received by two women who say they had sexual relationships with the president before he was elected. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney, is serving a prison sentence for federal crimes related to those payments, and Vance is reportedly curious about whether the scheme also violated a state law prohibiting falsification of business records.

If political foes like Vance are allowed to launch criminal investigations that might implicate Trump, he worries, the proliferation of such probes could have a crippling effect on his presidency. While that concern is hardly frivolous, Trump’s audacious solution puts both the president and his cronies above the law at least temporarily and perhaps permanently, depending on statutes of limitation and the impact that the passage of time has on the availability of evidence.

Which brings us, weirdly enough, to Trump’s 2016 boast that “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” If Trump actually committed such a crime while in office, 2nd Circuit Judge Denny Chin wondered during oral argument last month, what recourse would police and prosecutors have?

“Local authorities couldn’t investigate?” Chin asked. “Nothing could be done? That is your position?”

Trump’s lawyer, William Consovoy, did not hesitate. “That is correct,” he said, while noting that Trump could be prosecuted after leaving office.

That position did not sit well with the appeals court, which noted that it seems inconsistent with the relevant precedents. Way back in 1807, Chief Justice John Marshall, while overseeing the treason trial of Vice President Aaron Burr, upheld a subpoena seeking documents from President Thomas Jefferson for use by the defense.

Marshall deemed it “not controverted” that “the president of the United States may be subpoenaed, and examined as a witness, and required to produce any paper in his possession.” In 1974, when the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a subpoena directing President Richard Nixon to produce audio recordings and documents for use in the Watergate-related prosecution of senior administration officials, it likewise held that “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.”

The Court reiterated that point in 1997, when it allowed Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton to proceed. “The President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances,” it noted.

The Trump case, which the Supreme Court is expected to hear on appeal, is novel in the sense that it involves a local criminal investigation, as opposed to a federal prosecution or a civil lawsuit. But unlike the Nixon case, it does not implicate the president’s conversations with his advisers. And unlike both the Nixon and Clinton cases, it does not even involve demands on the president himself.

It is surely possible to address Trump’s legitimate concerns about presidential prerogatives without granting him the blanket of protection he seeks. The rule of law requires a more discriminating approach.

Odessa, TX

Current Conditions

Sunny
36°
Humidity: 51%
Winds: S at 10mph
Feels Like: 28°

Your Extended Forecast

Tomorrow

weather
High 56°/Low 33°
Partly cloudy. Highs in the mid 50s and lows in the low 30s.

thursday

weather
High 55°/Low 31°
Sunshine. Highs in the mid 50s and lows in the low 30s.

friday

weather
High 63°/Low 37°
Sunny. Highs in the low 60s and lows in the upper 30s.
Online Features

Pet Central

pets

Having a pet is a lot of responsibility, and we’ll help by giving you lots of tips and tricks! More >>

Fitness

Fitness

Our fitness articles will help teach you how to work out with gym- and home-based exercises. More >>

Crosswords

Crosswords

Enjoy the crosswords challenge in our free daily puzzles, from the harder Sunday crossword to the quicker daily. More >>

Sudoku

Sudoku

Every Sudoku has a unique solution that can be reached logically. Enter numbers into the blank spaces so that each row, column and 3x3 box contains the numbers 1 to 9. More >>




  • ALL-ACCESS: Subscribe to our e-edition and premium website at myoaoa.com.
    You can read your daily newspaper without taking a walk to the driveway.
    Look back at yesterday's newspaper, or issues from months ago with our archive feature.
    Call circulation at 432-337-7314 to sign up today.