In a rhetorical escalation, Donald Trump is now arguing that presidents can commit crimes without fear of prosecution. Do Republican officials agree?
In 1977, three years after Americans saw their president resign in disgrace for the first time, David Frost sat down with Richard Nixon, who argued, “When the president does it, that means that is not illegal.”
Nearly a half-century later, it’s an idea that Donald Trump apparently takes a little too seriously.
Last week, one of his lawyers suggested in open court that presidents could order SEAL Team Six to literally murder his or her political rivals, and that president shouldn’t face criminal prosecution unless a majority of the U.S. House and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate acted first. Asked if he agreed, the Republican effectively endorsed the argument.
“On immunity, very simple, if a president of the United States does not have immunity, he’ll be totally ineffective, because he won’t be able to do anything, because it will mean he’ll be prosecuted — strongly prosecuted, perhaps — as soon as he leaves office by the opposing party,” Trump said.
Just hours ago, the likely GOP nominee returned to the argument — though he added an important new detail. The Hill reported:
Former President Trump said there would be “years of trauma” if presidents are not awarded total immunity from prosecution for their actions in the White House — even if those actions “cross the line.”
In an all-caps tirade published to his social-media platform — at 1:59 a.m. local time — the Republican wrote, “Even events that ‘cross the line’ must fall under total immunity. … Sometimes you just have to live with ‘great but slightly imperfect.’”
What Trump described, in other words, is a legal dynamic in which sitting American presidents are free from legal accountability, even when they commit crimes. Based on his own rhetoric, the Republican not only believes that presidents should be above the law, he believes they must be above the law.
This is, of course, the same Trump who has said presidents are incapable of obstructing justice; who’s endorsed “the termination” of constitutional law in response to bonkers election conspiracy theories; and who has repeatedly said he intends to become a temporary “dictator” on the first day of his prospective second term.
He also intends to seize control of government departments and agencies that have historically operated with independence, enact radical anti-immigrant plans, use government powers to crack down on journalists, and hire right-wing lawyers who will be positioned to help Trump politicize federal law enforcement and exact revenge against his perceived political foes.
He’s also been quite candid about issuing pardons to politically allied criminals and labeling his opponents “vermin,” seemingly indifferent to the word’s 1930s-era antecedents.
It’s against this backdrop that Trump now wants the public to know that he believes presidents should be allowed to commit crimes, too.
There’s little reason to believe the former president has to worry about a political backlash in response to such rhetoric. A recent national Fox News poll asked respondents: “Some people say things in the U.S. are so far off track that we need a president willing to break some rules and laws to set things right, while others say the president should always follow the rules and laws. Which comes closest to your view?”
The survey found that 30% of self-identified Trump voters — nearly a third — were on board with a president who operates outside “rules and laws.”
The larger question is whether GOP officials, who’ve sworn an oath to the Constitution and who presumably know better, are on board with such a vision. If not, now would be an excellent time for them to say so.
www.msnbc.com
