I’m hoping someone out there can explain this to me. I’ve read and re-read the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity. I understand it to say that a president cannot be held criminally liable for official acts. It does not grant immunity to anyone else. It does not say that a previously illegal act committed by a president then becomes legal for all. It is not then illegal just for the president but the violated law is not itself transformed for the rest of us.
So, if Trump goes into the Treasury building and enters the computer system with the intent to alter data he cannot be held liable. But what happens if he orders someone else to do it under the authority of a clearance he didn’t have authority to give? Isn’t that person a cyber terrorist sabotaging US systems? Cannot security or law enforcement take action to stop it? And if the president orders the police to stand down are they obliged to follow an illegal order?
I understand this is massively complicated and that I’m probably missing something. Someone will likely say that I’m suggesting mutiny or even a coup. But way back when I was a Spec. 4 in the US Army I understood that I was not obliged to follow illegal orders. How is this any different?
It seems that everything depends upon the integrity of leadership. But what happens when the leaders lack integrity? Who decides? Maybe it is as simple as just saying no.