Personal actions vs official actions?

[kentuck]

This seems to be the thrust of Trump's entire defense.

Surely, it was a "personal" decision to sit for 3 hours and do nothing as insurrectionists were attacking our Capitol?

If he had ordered the National Guard to shoot to kill, and 200 of the rioters had been killed, then that would have been an "official" decision?

Surely it was an "official" decision when he ordered his people to make fraudulent ballots to try and steal an election, since he was still President at the time?

Of course, it would have been a private, "personal" decision to pay off people before the election because he was still a private citizen when the decision was made. It was not an "official" action.

In reality, it is nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters and confuse any jurors that might be asked to judge his actions.

In an attempt to justify his criminal actions, he wants people to divide them into private vs official duties of the President. If they were private or personal action, then they are not important to any criminal investigation. If the crimes were committed while he was president, then he is immune from any prosecution, because they were all part of his official duties.

Confused yet?

[intrepidity]

1. To add to the confusion

you also have a person who is, simultaneously, both a President and a candidate. Good luck separating the two.

The SC is going to write something that is impossible to implement.

[unblock]

2. yes it's not such a problem when it comes to governors or judges taking bribes.

they exchange official duties for personal gain, and they go to prison for it.

rod blagojovich, for instance. just because an official duty is involved shouldn't make it immune. in fact, it very much should be criminal if done for illegitimate purposes.

so donnie exercising or not exercising or delaying exercising presidential powers to end the coup would be an official act, but if he acted with corrupt intent, then it should still be criminal.

that said, i'm not holding my breath hoping the psychotic six on the supreme court will see things this way.

i'm bracing for them to say it has to be something like "obviously" unrelated to official duties in order for a president or former president to face criminal liability. this would be incredibly broad, enough so they could throw out any j6 charges, though i hope not broad enough to throw out the catch-and-kill charges, much of which happened before he took office (though some of the fraud about the funds may have happened after, not sure of the timing).

then there's the question of how to treat presidents-elect. personally i think they haven't taken the job yet so they're still ordinary citizens, but again, i wouldn't count on this supreme court to see it like that.