From his first day in office—and every day since then—President Biden has taken action to strengthen American democracy and protect the rule of law. In
No, there are a lot of things that are not legal but also not criminal. Here, the difference is whether or not the President is empowered to take such action. Similarly, the President cannot enact a new tax law or bind the nation to a treaty as he lacks the legal authority to do so, but attempting to do so wouldn’t (under some scenarios) be an otherwise criminal act.
Fair point, it’s not a de facto legalization. However, I have to question the intent behind allowing for such varied interpretations of presidential immunity. Confining it to official or unofficial leaves an insane amount of wiggle room, when they could have decided to allow for real scrutiny within the context of an action and whose purposes it actually serves.
As it stands, a conversation between a president and election officials, regardless of context, is an official act. Presidents are allowed to talk to people in an official capacity, so regardless of what is said during those conversations, it’s completely fine? Why not provide any guidelines on what constitutes an official act? It’s just too broad for anything other than a “I’m sure people will just be cool” acceptance, which is exactly why we find ourselves in this situation to begin with.
(Edited to add what I’m told is called a “para-graph”)
Doesn’t removing criminal liability basically make it legal?
No, there are a lot of things that are not legal but also not criminal. Here, the difference is whether or not the President is empowered to take such action. Similarly, the President cannot enact a new tax law or bind the nation to a treaty as he lacks the legal authority to do so, but attempting to do so wouldn’t (under some scenarios) be an otherwise criminal act.
Fair point, it’s not a de facto legalization. However, I have to question the intent behind allowing for such varied interpretations of presidential immunity. Confining it to official or unofficial leaves an insane amount of wiggle room, when they could have decided to allow for real scrutiny within the context of an action and whose purposes it actually serves.
As it stands, a conversation between a president and election officials, regardless of context, is an official act. Presidents are allowed to talk to people in an official capacity, so regardless of what is said during those conversations, it’s completely fine? Why not provide any guidelines on what constitutes an official act? It’s just too broad for anything other than a “I’m sure people will just be cool” acceptance, which is exactly why we find ourselves in this situation to begin with.
(Edited to add what I’m told is called a “para-graph”)