Andrew Spannaus, author of Pluralia, an American professor and political scientist, considers the decision on partial immunity for Donald Trump a “practical victory” for the likely future president of the USA
The US Supreme Court’s decision to grant partial presidential immunity to Donald Trump in the Capitol Hill attack trial only for official acts, that is, actions taken within his constitutional authority, will certainly have repercussions inside and outside the USA. In an interview with Swiss Radio and Television, Andrew Spannaus, journalist, professor at the Catholic University of Milan, and American political scientist, analyzed the significance and scope of this victory for the former American president, which Trump himself did not hesitate to define as “…a victory for democracy.”
For Spannaus, this is primarily a “practical victory,” in the sense that Donald Trump did everything he could to delay the lawsuits, and the Supreme Court basically saved him from a criminal trial, the most important one, precisely for trying to overturn the election. And it bought him time.
But Trump’s ordeal isn’t over yet, because this brings the matter back to Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is tasked with “distinguishing between the official and the unofficial.” That is, the judge “will have to decide whether some of the charges should be dismissed based on the Supreme Court’s distinction between actions taken within the president’s constitutional authority and actions taken on his private domain.” Spannaus believes that there is also an American institutional responsibility in this issue. “The Justice Department,” he said, “acted slowly, the prosecutor could perhaps have been more careful earlier in distinguishing between official and private actions; in short, a great mix was created, and in the midst of it all, Trump undoubtedly achieved at least a practical victory, and the political and institutional consequences remain to be seen for years to come.”