John rarely writes about politics, but his June 28th column made the following comment in blue below. His comments surprised me (John Mauldin is 75 so he's not a "youngster", either:

I used to feel silly saying these fears out loud.  Now I feel like I can't say them loud enough.

--------------------------

Nixon didn't resign over Kent State. He didn't resign over the illegal invasions of Laos and Cambodia. He didn't resign over any of the completely vile Henry Kissinger's other genocidal escapades around the world on his behalf.

Nixon resigned because he was going to be impeached for covering up a crime committed by high ranking staffers. Something which, even under this Supreme Court ruling, Trump could not only be impeached for, he could be criminally charged with because it wasn't official conduct of the office. My examples in the first paragraph were all official acts of Nixon and/or his cabinet for which he was immune to criminal and civil prosecution both then and now.

The rest of your post is hysterics. I don't blame you for it. The media has been feeding you this for years because again, no one would vote for Biden's semi-ambulatory corpse unless they thought Trump was the Antichrist. Bluntly, this nation will survive another Nixon, Reagan, or W term just fine, even though it won't be governed to my liking. A lot of people in the third world may not survive it, but there are plenty of Democratic hawks who will do the same thing.

And again, the right-wing media does the exact same fear-mongering in reverse. Obama was a communist supposedly. Biden was a communist supposedly. Bill Clinton was a radical leftist. They're all drug addicted murderers, etc. etc. If you can look at the other side, and diagnose what they're doing to their base, it should help you become more aware of the fact that your side tries to do exactly the same thing.

In this country, Republicans are always ready to reach a new low, and Democrats are always ready to sink to their level.

And, as I understand it,  if it is "official" business,  then it can't be questioned. So, basically,  the President truly answers to no one, now.

One of Nixon's men has this to say about that:

LINK: "Richard Nixon Would Have Loved the Court’s Immunity Decision"

Sure it can.  Take Trump's communications with Pence on Jan 6, for example.  The court said those communications would qualify as official business, but Trump can be criminally charged in connection with them if doing so would not intrude upon the authority and functions of the executive branch.  

That's not a difficult threshold to meet.

Trump is charged with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.  As it pertains to Pence, the indictment says:

"The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.  First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince the Vice President to use the defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them.  When that failed, on the morning of January 6, the Defendant and co-conspirators repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused."

So ask yourself, what executive functions are involved here?  On Pence's side, you have the role of the VP in certifying the election results.  On Trump's side, you have the role of the executive branch in protecting the integrity of elections by enforcing election laws.

Charging Trump with "knowingly" making false statements about election fraud doesn't intrude on either of the aforementioned legitimate functions of the executive branch, or the authority of the President, IMO.

If anything, it protects the separation of powers.  As the VP is acting in his role as President of the Senate, his function in certifying the election is quasi-legislative, and should not be interfered with by the executive branch.

The counter argument would be that charging Trump with fraud in this instance could have a chilling effect on future presidents seeking to prevent the certification of election results they believe to be fraudulent, because they are afraid they will be prosecuted if it turns out they are wrong.

I think that's a weak argument in light of (1) the lack of evidence of widespread fraud in any presidential election, and (2) Trump and future presidents would be protected by Grand Jury proceedings, by which I mean that in order to successfully indict a president under similar  circumstances, there would have to be compelling evidence to suggest the President knew he was lying about the election results.

Unlike a lot else this court does, I don’t think that fogginess is deliberate; I think it’s just an inevitable outcome of rulings that prize philosophy over applied mechanics.  I again tie this back to Thomas in particular, who seems to be a pretty disinterested jurist in the finer points of law (as ACB noted recently, not everything can be filtered through the lens of Originalism).

Maybe in some ways, the weak legal foundations of these rulings will make them easier to counter in future courts and legislation. I dunno.

"Problem is, SCOTUS refrained from defining the parameters."

I disagree.  The Court said "when the President acts pursuant to constitutional and statutory authority he takes official actions to perform the functions of his office."

That means any act that is not authorized by the Constitution or a statute is NOT an official act.  

The court further distinguished official acts that are protected by absolute immunity from official acts that are only protected by presumptive immunity.

I agree Trump will assert that every action he took as the President was an official act.  But he's wrong.  And I think in coming months that will be proven when most of the cases against him are allowed to move forward.

There's been a lot of discussion, especially in CPA circles, around the level of debt and unfunded liabilities and the point in time where it may overwhelm the US economy, going all the way back to the 1980's when the major networks (CBS, NBC and ABC) wouldn't air The Deficit Trials of 2017 AD commercial from WR Grace & Company:

LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiBCRQL58_k

(Directed by Ridley Scott)

It was the theme at the AICPA during Greg Anton's year.

LINK: https://us.aicpa.org/advocacy/cpasinsight