Whatever happened to the expectation that those we entrust to lead us should be representative of the best of us?
We speak of the Founding Fathers of our democracy with great respect, acknowledging their intention to create a government and country of strength, equality, and resilience, risking their wealth and their lives to do so.
Now our leaders speak of petty things and spend their time doing petty acts of political expediency.
It is long past time for us to expect a higher level of discourse and conduct from those who we have elected to lead.
And if there is one public office that should demand the highest levels of moral, ethical, and law-abiding conduct, it is the office of the President of the United States.
That is why our former president’s claim of total immunity is so wrong.
The very fact that our former president has even brought this claim to the Supreme Court should be profoundly disturbing to everyone.
Yet it seems that the focus is on whether or not the former president will win his argument or at the very least delay his legal accountability for allegedly using the power of his office to attempt to negate the will of the people.
The former president has shown himself to have an exceptional talent for twisting facts and weaving elaborate tales whereby he is both victim and hero, martyr and savior. Like all great con men, there is always a kernel of truth in what he says.
His argument that the President must have total immunity for all actions taken in the performance of his official duties is certainly correct.
What is not correct, however, is his attempt to define the range of official duties to include essentially anything that the President deems to be such.
Apparently, this would include, among virtually unlimited possibilities:
The assassination or imprisonment of anyone that the President believes poses a threat to the country;
The creation by Executive Order of a mandatory Presidential loyalty pledge that would be required of all employees of the executive branch of the Federal government;
The establishment of a Presidential private fund to receive bribes, kick-backs, and other financial benefits related to any contracts entered into by the Federal government;
The ability to declare a National Emergency to suspend the legal transfer of power following an election;
Finally, the use of threats and coercion to change the outcome of an election.
These are all actions representative of dictatorial rule, as can be seen in many other countries throughout history. The concept of total immunity for a President does not represent the preservation of democracy, it represents the end of democracy.
The President must be expected to abide by the Constitution and by the laws of the country that define the legal and illegal actions of its citizens. No one, especially the President, should be above the law.
The Supreme Court must acknowledge the grave threat to this country that the concept of Presidential Total Immunity represents and reject it in the strongest possible terms.
The Supreme Court must not attempt to find some gray area of limited immunity by which Donald Trump can be absolved of his past and possibly future actions that would be considered criminal if performed by anyone else.
This country is strong enough and resilient enough to survive another four years of a Donald Trump presidency, even if the Supreme Court creates a definition of limited immunity that would in and of itself be of questionable constitutionality.
It could be argued that this country will never again see a presidential candidate so immoral, so unethical, and so blatantly self-serving as Donald Trump, and therefore the significance of his demand for Presidential Total Immunity is not so important when seen in the context of history.
It could be argued that Donald Trump is not really inclined to abuse Presidential Total Immunity and may not even believe that it is necessary, and that this has all been just a very clever legal maneuver to allow him to avoid prosecution for his highly questionable and allegedly illegal actions.
What cannot be argued is that there is anything good or honorable about how Donald Trump has manipulated our democracy and convinced so many of our people that he is a great man and a great leader.
His actions do not support his words, his results do not support his claims, and the adoration he receives from so many here is not shared beyond our country’s borders.
Donald Trump may never be held accountable to the American people, but he will be held accountable by God and by history.