Does presidential immunity cover breaking the law while performing a presidential duty?

SCOTUS has made presidential immunity cover a lot including seemingly a president breaking the law while performing a presidential duty. If that is so, then pardoning anyone that helps the president either by helping him politically, financially when bribed or even legally, by pardoning someone to keep them quiet about a president's wrongdoing seems to be covered by the ruling on immunity. So, the present president or any future president can use this immunity to save himself from any time he uses the pardon power for political, financial or even legal reasons.

Yep. Some of us noticed the Massive Loophole of Lawlessness previously.

I will say this: Since the SCOTUS is unlikely to prevent a President from self-pardoning anyway, all the ruling really does is prevent a President from giving him/herself a blanket pardon during their term, or on the way out the door. So in many senses, the disaster of the ruling was much more about destroying democratic norms than making a serious practical change. That's not trivial.

That said, the SCOTUS ruling also means that past Presidents, that did not pardon themselves on their last day, can't be prosecuted for anything related to an official duty. Needless to say, this will stop the DoJ from getting anywhere in any *cough* trumped-up attempts to prosecute Biden, Obama, or Bush 43.

WisconIndependent said:

SCOTUS has made presidential immunity cover a lot including seemingly a president breaking the law while performing a presidential duty. If that is so, then pardoning anyone that helps the president either by helping him politically, financially when bribed or even legally, by pardoning someone to keep them quiet about a president's wrongdoing seems to be covered by the ruling on immunity. So, the present president or any future president can use this immunity to save himself from any time he uses the pardon power for political, financial or even legal reasons.

Click to expand...

Pardons are the discretion of the serving President. If you look, you will see all have pardoned or commuted some questionable people.
This clause is the foundation for the President's power to:

• Remit fines, penalties, and forfeitures: This includes the ability to waive financial punishments associated with a crime.
  
  
• Pardon absolutely or conditionally: The President can grant a full pardon or a pardon with specific conditions attached.
  
  
• • Commute sentences: This allows the President to reduce a criminal sentence.
    
  • Grant reprieves: This is a temporary suspension of a punishment.
    

The Supreme Court has interpreted the pardon power broadly, allowing the President to exercise these actions for offenses against the United States, even during legal proceedings or after conviction. However, the power is limited to federal offenses and does not extend to cases of impeachment. (AI)

WisconIndependent said:

SCOTUS has made presidential immunity cover a lot including seemingly a president breaking the law while performing a presidential duty. If that is so, then pardoning anyone that helps the president either by helping him politically, financially when bribed or even legally, by pardoning someone to keep them quiet about a president's wrongdoing seems to be covered by the ruling on immunity. So, the present president or any future president can use this immunity to save himself from any time he uses the pardon power for political, financial or even legal reasons.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS did some of its finest work protecting our executives from any and all efforts to constrain criminal risk. I think you should equate it to 'royal immunity', similar to that of an English or French sovereign in the 17th century.

WisconIndependent said:

SCOTUS has made presidential immunity cover a lot including seemingly a president breaking the law while performing a presidential duty. If that is so, then pardoning anyone that helps the president either by helping him politically, financially when bribed or even legally, by pardoning someone to keep them quiet about a president's wrongdoing seems to be covered by the ruling on immunity. So, the present president or any future president can use this immunity to save himself from any time he uses the pardon power for political, financial or even legal reasons.

Click to expand...

That would be correct.

Forget Plessy v. Ferguson, Trump v. US is clearly the worst decision in the history of the SCOTUS.

WisconIndependent said:

SCOTUS has made presidential immunity cover a lot including seemingly a president breaking the law while performing a presidential duty. If that is so, then pardoning anyone that helps the president either by helping him politically, financially when bribed or even legally, by pardoning someone to keep them quiet about a president's wrongdoing seems to be covered by the ruling on immunity. So, the present president or any future president can use this immunity to save himself from any time he uses the pardon power for political, financial or even legal reasons.

Click to expand...

I dont know that other people/accomplices would be protected but in most cases, but if they were charged with anything, they would be eligible for pardon. In many cases tho, "I was just following orders" will go a long way. Esp. the military.

Yes, they're pretty well protected under current understanding of the SCOTUS decision.

Integrityrespec said:

Pardons are the discretion of the serving President. If you look, you will see all have pardoned or commuted some questionable people.
This clause is the foundation for the President's power to:

• Remit fines, penalties, and forfeitures: This includes the ability to waive financial punishments associated with a crime.
  
  
• Pardon absolutely or conditionally: The President can grant a full pardon or a pardon with specific conditions attached.
  
  
• • Commute sentences: This allows the President to reduce a criminal sentence.
  • Grant reprieves: This is a temporary suspension of a punishment.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the pardon power broadly, allowing the President to exercise these actions for offenses against the United States, even during legal proceedings or after conviction. However, the power is limited to federal offenses and does not extend to cases of impeachment. (AI)

Click to expand...

What I am asking is if Trump can take a bribe, financial gain, for giving a pardon and not be in legal trouble.

WisconIndependent said:

What I am asking is if Trump can take a bribe, financial gain, for giving a pardon and not be in legal trouble.

Click to expand...

Thank you for refining this. Pardoning is an "official act of office" so I think POTUS would be immune.

Because immunity wouldnt be necessary for legal actions...only illegal or unconstitutional ones. That, unfortunately, seems to be the meaning of the SCOTUS decision.