A BBC presenter on the left is facing criticism after suggesting that President Biden should have Donald Trump “murdered” following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling on Monday. “If I was Biden I’d hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security,” Radio 4 host David Aaronovitch, 69, wrote on X. His comment was in response to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling Monday that Trump has immunity for any “official acts” he made during his presidency.
Aaronovitch’s reaction sparked an immediate backlash, including one account that suggested “people have had police visits for a lot less. Knock knock.” When Aaronovitch deleted his initial post, GB News contributor Alex Armstrong accused him of “backtracking” due to advice from his “handlers.”
Another journalist, Jack Montgomery, suggested that Aaronovitch had “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Columnist Steven Barrett quipped, “‘Impartiality’ may not be in the best of health at the BBC…” Aaronovitch went on to suggest that he was using ‘satire,’ but another commenter wrote: “If you think that saying it was satire will protect you, you was trying to incite violence against Donald Trump. Absolutely disgusting behavior.” Another said: “Dude. You straight up called for Trump to be murdered. You’re a disgusting POS.”
The nation’s highest court ruled that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. Former presidents are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts, the court said, adding that there is no immunity protection in the Constitution for unofficial acts.
The case relates to former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity for acts he performed while president in regards to the Jan. 6 “election interference” case filed against him in the D.C. district court last year. In Part III of its opinion, the court indicated that in this case, “no court has thus far considered how” to distinguish between official and unofficial acts. This ruling now puts all of these charges filed against Trump at risk of being dismissed.
Moreover, Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, continues, “The lower courts rendered their decisions on a highly expedited basis” and “did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial” — and it wasn’t briefed before the Supreme Court. So the Court isn’t going to make that determination now. Instead, it will send the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings, although it does offer some guidance, SCOTUS Blog reported.
“Certain allegations–such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General–are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations–such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public–present more difficult questions,” Roberts continued. “Trump is … absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”
The court sent the case back to the district court for it to determine other things, such as “whether a prosecution involving Trump’s attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” He added, however, that “Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized.”
“As for the dissents,” Roberts continued, “they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today–conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.”
