WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments on former President Donald Trump’s assertion of presidential immunity in the face of federal charges tied to the 2020 election not only casts a spotlight on his legal battle but also opens up a broader discussion on the scope of presidential immunity itself. This discourse is not confined to Trump; it extends to actions taken by past presidents, which, under different circumstances, could potentially expose them to criminal liability. This article examines precedents and scenarios from the past where former presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden might face legal scrutiny for their actions in office. Furthermore, ghosts from the past are no longer culpable, but may lend value to the courts decision, contextualized by the ongoing debate over Trump’s claim to immunity.
Presidential Immunity: A Double-Edged Sword
Presidential immunity is a principle designed to ensure that the nation’s leader can perform duties without the constant threat of litigation. However, the extent of this immunity is under scrutiny. Greg Germain, a law professor, suggests that while immunity should protect core official acts, it should not shield actions taken for personal gain or unrelated to official duties. This distinction becomes crucial when examining the actions of past presidents.
Barack Obama and Drone Strikes
The Obama administration’s use of drone strikes, including those that resulted in the deaths of American citizens abroad, has been a point of contention. Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was killed in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011, raising questions about the legality of targeting American citizens without due process. While these actions were justified under the umbrella of wartime decisions and counterterrorism efforts, they highlight the complex balance between national security and individual rights. Under different legal interpretations, such actions could potentially expose a president to liability if deemed beyond the scope of official duties or if they violated constitutional rights.
George W. Bush and the Iraq War
The decision by President George W. Bush to invade Iraq in 2003, predicated on the belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), has been heavily criticized, especially as subsequent evidence suggested that the intelligence was flawed. The implications of launching a war based on potentially misleading information pose significant ethical and legal questions. If actions taken under false pretenses or misinformation were to be considered outside the purview of presidential immunity, they could, in theory, open a president to charges of misrepresentation or even war crimes.
Bill Clinton and Military Interventions
President Bill Clinton’s administration saw various military interventions, most notably in Kosovo and Somalia. While these actions were framed as humanitarian efforts or part of international peacekeeping, the unilateral decisions to deploy military force without congressional approval could be scrutinized under the lens of presidential overreach. The distinction between acting within the bounds of national interest and overstepping authority is delicate, potentially rendering a president vulnerable to allegations of abuse of power.
Joe Biden and Ukraine
The allegations against Joe Biden, stemming from his tenure as Vice President, involve claims of quid pro quo with Ukraine—threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees unless a prosecutor investigating a company tied to his son was dismissed. While Biden’s actions were part of official U.S. foreign policy and supported by international institutions, critics argue that personal benefit intersected with official duties. This scenario underscores the challenges in distinguishing between national interest and personal gain, especially when family interests are involved.
Legal Precedents and Theoretical Vulnerabilities
The legal landscape is replete with debates over the extent of presidential immunity. The Supreme Court’s ruling in cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) established that a president enjoys absolute immunity from civil litigation for official acts. However, the court also held in Clinton v. Jones (1997) that a president could be subject to civil lawsuits for actions taken before or unrelated to their presidency. These rulings, while not directly addressing criminal liability, suggest a nuanced approach to immunity that balances the need to protect presidential functions with accountability.
Richard Nixon and the Watergate Scandal
Richard Nixon’s presidency is synonymous with the Watergate scandal, a watershed moment in American political history that led to Nixon’s resignation. The scandal involved illegal activities, including the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and the subsequent cover-up by the Nixon administration. While Nixon was never charged due to his resignation and subsequent pardon by President Gerald Ford, the episode raises significant questions about presidential immunity in the face of clear criminal conduct. The Nixon case is a pivotal example of actions that are patently outside the scope of official presidential duties, highlighting the potential for criminal liability when a president engages in or orchestrates illegal activities.
Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair
The Reagan administration was embroiled in the Iran-Contra affair, a complex scheme involving the secret sale of arms to Iran to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua, in violation of U.S. law. While President Ronald Reagan claimed he was unaware of the specifics of the operation, the scandal brings to light the issue of executive responsibility and plausible deniability. If a president is found to have had knowledge of or directed illegal activities, even indirectly, this could theoretically subject them to legal action if the doctrine of immunity were interpreted more narrowly.
Lyndon B. Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident
The Gulf of Tonkin incident, which escalated the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, was based on alleged attacks on U.S. naval vessels by North Vietnamese forces—attacks that later reporting and historical analysis suggest were exaggerated or did not occur as reported. President Lyndon B. Johnson used the incident to secure congressional approval for military action, significantly expanding the war effort. This example raises questions about the misuse of executive power to mislead Congress and the public, potentially constituting grounds for legal scrutiny under different circumstances.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Japanese American Internment
During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, leading to the internment of Japanese Americans, a decision widely regarded in hindsight as a grave injustice and violation of civil liberties. While the context of wartime decisions provides some shield of immunity, the targeted racial discrimination and deprivation of liberty without due process could, under today’s legal standards, expose a president to charges of violating constitutional rights.
Implications and the Future of Presidential Accountability
These historical examples underscore the complexity of presidential immunity and the potential for its abuse. Each instance reflects decisions made under the guise of national security, foreign policy, or executive discretion that, upon closer examination, reveal a darker intersection of overreach, misconduct, or outright illegality.
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on Trump’s claim to immunity will not only have immediate implications for him but will also potentially set precedents affecting how actions by future presidents are judged. As the examples of Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Biden illustrate, the line between official duties and personal or misguided actions is often blurred, raising complex questions about accountability. Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores the ongoing debate over the limits of presidential power and the mechanisms in place to ensure that no individual is above the law.
“The Don’t Unfriend Me Show” explores a broad range of political themes, from satire to serious topics, with Matt Speer, a Navy Intel veteran, husband, and father, leading the show. Matt shares his views to stimulate constructive discussions. The show aims to provide a balanced perspective on complex issues, welcoming participants of all political affiliations to share their unique viewpoints.
Why is it only Trump that’s being dragged into courtrooms all across the country ? I think the answer is obvious.
It is painfully obvious ! And the charges in GA are total BS, since as a sitting President, he SHOULD look into allegations of improper elections, and they have shown enough evidence to justify looking into what DID happen in GA ! Remember that KARMA can be a B!tch, and if SCOTUS turns down the immunity, several past presidents can be in deep doo doo ! SO, all those that wanted Trump prosecuted, may find themselves prosecuted as well !
It seems to me that the real question has fell by the wayside. The dems are accusing Trump of aiding in an insurrection. But none of the innocents that the dems have arrested and/or imprisoned have be charged with insurrection. So, who says it’s an insurrection? Well, Pelosi and her gang of political backers along with her parrots in the main stream media. There has been no formal declaration. So, why is the SCOTUS going to decide about immunity? Immunity from what? Presidential papers? Well, then on the other hand, you have biden in possession of papers from his days in the Senate AND the vice presidency when he clearly had no right to those papers stashed in his garage. Where is the uproar?
u