Presidential immunity, explained

 ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ {NAME} - The Supreme Court just expanded presidential power in a ruling along partisan lines which states that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution over “official acts,” a category which the Court appears to define broadly. The Court’s decision makes it likely that the trial over Trump’s acts on and leading up to January 6th will be postponed until after the election. A district court will now rule on whether his actions constitute official acts, and legal scholars believe that the Court’s definition of official acts will likely result in at least some charges being dropped. It makes me think about another moment in our history, where a different President tried to use the office to protect himself and his power. Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court unanimously ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over tapes to the Watergate special prosecutor. The Court, which included several Nixon appointees, ruled swiftly and firmly on a principle that should be obvious: nobody is above the law, much less those that we entrust with our trust and the great powers of the presidency. Today, the Court has abandoned that tradition of putting country over partisanship and set a dangerous precedent that will enable future presidents—perhaps even Trump himself—to commit crimes without fear of accountability. We fought a revolution to escape an unaccountable King. This ruling creates a system like the one the founders fought to abolish and harms the constitutional order that they created. Justice Sotomayor offered a clear warning on the effects of this ruling, writing, “with fear for our democracy, I dissent.” This ruling raises the stakes immeasurably for the November election. The first Trump presidency brought us to the brink of a constitutional crisis, culminating in his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and January 6th. As someone who was in the Capitol on that day, I shudder to think about Trump unleashed with the protection of the Supreme Court against criminal prosecution. Here’s the key to preventing that outcome: win in Michigan. If Trump wins here, he’s almost certainly the next President of the United States. We have built the kind of grassroots campaign that will bring out Democrats from every area of Michigan to win this race, and hopefully help ensure Donald Trump is defeated as well. [But no matter our success so far, there are still many undecided voters we have to reach. That’s why I’m asking: will you consider chipping in $3 to help us keep Michigan blue?]( If you've stored your info with ActBlue, we'll process your contribution instantly: [Donate $3]( [Donate $25]( [Donate $50]( [Donate $100]( [Donate $250]( [Other Amount]( Thank you, Elissa  PAID FOR BY ELISSA SLOTKIN FOR MICHIGAN P.O. Box 4145 East Lansing, MI 48826 This email was sent to [{EMAIL}](#). Email is a very important way we communicate with supporters like you, but if you want to, you can [unsubscribe here](. [Sign up here to receive fewer emails.]( Elissa Slotkin served in the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense. Use of her job titles and photographs during service do not imply endorsement by the Central Intelligence Agency OR the Department of Defense.