> The trump immunity case put forth what has always been - Presidents aren't charged without being impeached first.
Trump was impeached. He was not convicted. Funny enough in his second impeachment trail his own lawyer argued that he shouldn't be convicted in the Senate because he was not immune and could simply be tried in the courts.
McConnell made the same argument: "We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,"
And in fact there are plenty of examples of Presidents being assumed not to be immune, the pardoning of Nixon for example.
Futher the Constitution explicitly grants legislative immunity to legislators but does not mention any such immunity to the President, a circle this decision doesn't even begin to square.
The argument that the president has always been presumed immune goes pretty aggressively against history.
Trump was impeached. He was not convicted. Funny enough in his second impeachment trail his own lawyer argued that he shouldn't be convicted in the Senate because he was not immune and could simply be tried in the courts.
McConnell made the same argument: "We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,"
And in fact there are plenty of examples of Presidents being assumed not to be immune, the pardoning of Nixon for example.
Futher the Constitution explicitly grants legislative immunity to legislators but does not mention any such immunity to the President, a circle this decision doesn't even begin to square.
The argument that the president has always been presumed immune goes pretty aggressively against history.