I am often accused of favoring one side over the other and pointing out some faults while ignoring similar ones.
So here I am going to try and rectify that.
Within minutes of the Presidential Immunity case being handed down by the Supreme Court my phone blew up with Democratic fundraising requests staged to look like emergency notifications.
Here's one.
Now I read the decision. While it does grant presumptive immunity for official acts the key word is presumptive, not blanket, or absolute.
One definition of presumptive, a form of presumption, is this:
"a legal inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not certainly known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of some other fact."
Which most simply means a President is presumed to have immunity in official acts by virtue of being president, but such a presumption can be overcome by impeachment while in office or by evidence the acts were not official after they leave office.
If the decision said the President enjoys absolute immunity for acts in office start ringing the alarms. It didn't.
In the decision itself it addresses the admission by Mr. Trump through counsel that some of his acts on January 6 and other dates were unofficial and thus not protected by a presumption of immunity.
Dear Democratic fundraisers, please don't presume you need to sensationalize or obfuscate facts to raise money. Have some faith in the intelligence of those who would support your policies and recognize that complex cases like these cannot be broken down into simple wins and losses.
No comments:
Post a Comment