Trump’s lawyers have turned to George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States” in an attempt to argue for absolute immunity for the former president. They cite Washington’s warning against political factions, but omit the part where Washington warns against the dangers of such factions leading to permanent despotism under an individual ruler. This misrepresentation of Washington’s words has been called an insult to the first president’s intent by many historians and commentators.
Washington’s farewell address also emphasizes the importance of avoiding the spirit of party, which can lead to mischiefs and distractions in public administration. Washington’s decision to voluntarily give up power and return to being a citizen at the end of his presidency stands in contrast to Trump’s efforts to seek immunity from prosecution. Historians point out that Washington did not expect absolute immunity and would likely find ways to work within and around the laws rather than seeking exemption from them.
The argument put forth by Trump’s lawyers that the lack of prosecution of former US presidents is evidence that they should not be prosecuted has been debunked by historians. They emphasize that Trump’s legal troubles stem from his refusal to accept the loss of the presidency, a departure from the norm of peaceful transitions of power in US history. The current situation in the Supreme Court has created speculation about a potential new immunity rule for presidential actions, with conservative justices showing interest in the implications of their decision for future cases.
The deference shown by conservative justices on the Supreme Court to the arguments presented by Trump’s lawyers has surprised observers, as many expected a more critical examination of the case. If the court were to create an immunity rule, it would be a departure from their usual textualist approach, as immunity is not mentioned in the Constitution and was not a topic of debate at the Constitutional Convention. Critics argue that granting immunity to presidents would undermine the principle of accountability and encourage dangerous behavior in political parties.
Overall, the attempt by Trump’s lawyers to use George Washington’s words to argue for absolute immunity for the former president has been met with criticism and skepticism from historians and legal analysts. Washington’s warning against political factions and emphasis on accountability and responsibility in public office stands in contrast to Trump’s actions and legal challenges. The decision in the Supreme Court case will have far-reaching implications for presidential accountability and the rule of law in the United States.
