The issue is that presidents can be prosecuted even if they likely didn't break the law. It would be possible to just keep throwing bullshit charges at a former president either until one sticks or until their resources to fight off an unending string of legal battles is exhausted. It does make sense that the bar to prosecute someone should be higher when they are particularly likely to be the subject of malicious prosecution and the fear of such would interfere with them carrying out their duties.
The issue is that blanket immunity for official acts is not just raising the bar, it's launching it into orbit. Not only can a president not be prosecuted for questionable decisions or on scant evidence, they can not be prosecuted when their crimes are heinous and obvious so long as it is plausibly within their ___domain.
>The issue is that presidents can be prosecuted even if they likely didn't break the law. It would be possible to just keep throwing bullshit charges at a former president either until one sticks or until their resources to fight off an unending string of legal battles is exhausted.
I have no problem choosing between the chance there will be a President who abuses immense power over everyone in the nation with no real accountability, and the chance a slew of people (prosecutors, investigators, judges) will act maliciously and repeatedly to persecute a single person. Does SCOTUS really fear that federal Judges like them can't recognize malicious and baseless indictments?
There's plenty of historical examples of how bad of an idea prosecuting former leaders is. When a country's leaders fear prosecution if they lose power, they have every incentive to cling to power as long as possible by any means necessary. Certainly there's a middle-ground that needs to be struck between the President they are above the law entirely and the President fearing prosecution by the next party in power regardless of how lawful they behaved. I worry that, in the U.S.'s current political climate without immunity, Presidents would be prosecuted by the other party as a matter of course.
You can still prosecute someone for whatever the prosecutor wants. This doesn't change that. If someone is acting in bad faith, they can do so regardless of the law.
The prosecutor can still begin a prosecution, but now it will be dismissed pretty much immediately unless there is good reason to believe that the action was not an official act.
We never had an issue with needing to prosecute a former President for 200 years either, and then we did. Institutions should be prepared for foreseeable issues.
> It would be possible to just keep throwing bullshit charges at a former president either until one sticks or until their resources to fight off an unending string of legal battles is exhausted.
I can't make up my mind if this is "movie plot threat" or not. Has it happened to other important figures before?
And can the prosecution be punished for this kind of behaviour?
Then again, I guess if you can shop around for (politically-appointed) judges, it wouldn't be too hard to find a judge to indulge some bullshit prosecution.
The issue is that blanket immunity for official acts is not just raising the bar, it's launching it into orbit. Not only can a president not be prosecuted for questionable decisions or on scant evidence, they can not be prosecuted when their crimes are heinous and obvious so long as it is plausibly within their ___domain.