Skip to playerSkip to main content
  • 2 years ago
Claire Finkelstein, Director of the UPenn Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law, joined Forbes Senior Legal Editor Liane Jackson "Forbes Newsroom" to discuss the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript


Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Transcript
00:00Now, Chief Justice Roberts, who authored this opinion, has portrayed it or tried to portray
00:05it as a very narrow ruling, but he also gave some sort of really broad sweeps of how courts
00:12can look at this and how prosecutors will look at this that they cannot consider, for
00:16example, a president's motives in determining whether or not there's criminal activity.
00:23And he also said that, you know, he spoke specifically to Trump about leveraging the
00:27DOJ authority to replace electors is not prosecutable, pressuring Pence to reject
00:32electors, electoral votes is not prosecutable.
00:35What are your thoughts on the fact that they spoke to specific facts related to Trump,
00:39but they also gave sort of broad strokes, ways for the president in the future to potentially
00:46get away with things, so to speak.
00:47So that's a really concerning part of the opinion, because it suggests that if President
00:54Trump becomes president again and decides to fire Jack Smith, for example, that he
01:01would be immune to prosecute, first of all, that he would be within his constitutional
01:07rights to do that, but first of all, but second of all, that he could not be found guilty
01:15for obstruction for doing that, because one would think that if you fire a special counsel
01:21who is investigating you or prosecuting you, that that would be a prime example of obstruction
01:28of justice.
01:31So right.
01:34But this decision essentially says that Congress doesn't have the authority to hold, to create
01:43statutes that make the president liable for obstruction if it would cut into his core
01:50constitutional powers, and it says that courts don't have the ability to find a president
01:59liable for obstruction if he is acting within his core constitutional competence.
02:07So that's a really significant, strikes a really significant blow against accountability
02:16for presidents and says basically that a president can't be found liable for obstruction, at
02:23least not as far as any removal of an executive branch official is concerned.
02:32And the court already sort of expanded or narrowed the ability to find obstruction in
02:37an earlier ruling related to January.
02:38The Fisher case, the Fisher case, so between the Fisher case and this case, that really
02:44strikes at the heart of obstruction laws applied to presidents.
Comments

Recommended