Legal experts, including Prof. Trevor Morrison, discuss the issue of presidential immunity in relation to Trump's case. Morrison argues against absolutist views on immunity, emphasizing limited circumstances. The DC Circuit's ruling suggests the indictment against Trump doesn't test the outer boundaries of immunity. The Constitution provides former presidents with immunity in specific cases, but not for altering election outcomes. Concerns are raised about the legality of dismissing Trump's case based on PRA grounds.
This second scenario is legally insane. If that were the case, then just grant Trump’s motion to dismiss on PRA grounds so DOJ bring it to the 11th circuit for a quick reversal. https://t.co/Gg6IVVw3Qn https://t.co/s4ZRjDuSdU
The Constitution gives former presidents immunity from prosecution in limited circumstances, writes Prof. Trevor Morrison on @lawfare, but that does not include “changing the outcome of a presidential election after the fact.” https://t.co/FUZfiqx0bW
As the DC Circuit held, the Trump case does not require courts to address the outer boundaries of presidential immunity, because the indictment is not remotely close to those boundaries. https://t.co/f2OLPnhBDg
“Moving Beyond Absolutes on Presidential Immunity; Presidents are sometimes immune from criminal prosecution, but only in limited circumstances; Trump’s case doesn’t come close”: Trevor Morrison has this post at the “Lawfare” blog. https://t.co/MlYm6iwg5S
"Trump and the government seem to have embraced opposite but equally absolutist answers to that question...In my view, neither of these absolutist positions is tenable." Trevor Morrison takes a nuanced approach to presidential immunity. https://t.co/HpkcbdTxco