• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Thanks for that! I found it interesting. But I still don’t get the argument. Are they saying that

    The Attorney General …, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct…

    Cannot apply to Preisdents because Presidents are not included in the set of people that US Attorneys are authorized to conduct proceedings against? Or that since this is all based on US Code, and US Code comes from Congress, it magically can’t apply to the President?

    I always thought all these arguments for Presidential Immunity were based on standing DoJ policy to not indict sitting Presidents. And that is based simply on the chain of command. It isn’t intended to shield corrupt Presidents, but rather to protect ethical Presidents. Since a President is the guy who the DoJ is ultimately accountable to, if they ever investigate a sitting President and exonerate him, his opponents will automatically assume it was rigged, even when it wasn’t. Where if you wait until he leaves office, (which is constitutionally guaranteed to happen), you can now have an investigation with more independence.