Presidential immunity does not mean presidents are "above the law". There are other ways of holding the president to account -- ways that don't impede their ability to carry out the role. (op-ed in the Wall Street Journal) davidbrivkin.com/whats-at-stake…

Even if the prospect of conviction is remote, the threat of prosecution impairs the presidency. Imagine how other presidents might have fared if they had to worry about prosecution for official acts, write David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley on.wsj.com/44lpTjM

Trump’s detractors insist that recognizing presidential immunity would put him above the law. They’re wrong, write David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley on.wsj.com/4dtMsXJ

And to top it all off, an observation from my friend and colleague David Rivkin: "the information he gave to Hur had nothing to do with his tenure as President and involved his private conduct."

From Wall Street Journal Opinion: If the State Department’s criticisms of Israel are serious, they imperil the defense of all civilized countries, write David Rivkin and Lee A. Casey on.wsj.com/4aMKD5f on.wsj.com/4aMKD5f

If the State Department’s criticisms of Israel are serious, they imperil the defense of all civilized countries. (op-ed in the Wall Street Journal w/ Lee A. Casey) davidbrivkin.com/israel-hamas-a…

If the State Department’s criticisms of Israel are serious, they imperil the defense of all civilized countries, write David Rivkin and Lee A. Casey on.wsj.com/3VxzEbT

Three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Trump’s trial. The Constitution demands that higher courts throw out the verdict against him, write David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley on.wsj.com/4bMvQJa

Trump, like all criminal defendants, was entitled to due process. The Constitution demands that higher courts throw out the verdict against him, write David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley on.wsj.com/3VqrLEY

Three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Trump’s trial. The Constitution demands that higher courts throw out the verdict against him, write David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley on.wsj.com/3VwuAEh

The immunity decision isn’t about Trump so much as it is about protecting the presidency itself; future occupants of that office, including President Biden; and the ability of the government to function, write David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley on.wsj.com/4cmLcob

America Depends on Presidential Immunity: Rejecting Trump’s claim would have meant a weaker government and a more politicized justice system. (op-ed in the WSJ w/ Elizabeth Price Foley) davidbrivkin.com/america-depend…

Any prosecution of a president based on his official acts harms the presidency’s effectiveness. The court has sent a clear message to prosecutors like Jack Smith, write David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley on.wsj.com/3xOVQ87

Democrats proclaim their devotion to democratic institutions, but their plan for the Supreme Court is an assault on America’s basic constitutional structure, write David Rivkin and Andrew M. Grossman on.wsj.com/4e0uKdt

Democrats make clear that if they win, they’ll push measures to destroy the judiciary’s independence. (op-ed in the Wall Street Journal w/ Andrew M. Grossman) Harris and Schumer Target the Supreme Court davidbrivkin.com/harris-and-sch…

Why Trump’s Conviction Can’t Stand: It rests on an intent to violate a state law that is pre-empted by the Federal Election Campaign Act. (op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, w/ Elizabeth Price Foley) davidbrivkin.com/why-trumps-con…

Bragg’s prosecution of Trump is plagued by many reversible legal errors, of which the failure to accord pre-emptive force to FECA is the strongest grounds for its reversal on appeal, write David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley on.wsj.com/3TmFaw6

From Wall Street Journal Opinion: Bragg’s prosecution of Trump is plagued by many reversible legal errors, of which the failure to accord pre-emptive force to FECA is the strongest grounds for its reversal on appeal, write David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley on.wsj.com/3TlTDsy

From Wall Street Journal Opinion: Jack Smith focuses on then-President Trump’s motives—a critical legal error, write David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley on.wsj.com/4dMnbGP on.wsj.com/4dMnbGP

What Jack Smith Gets Wrong About Immunity The special prosecutor focuses on then-President Trump’s motives—a critical legal error. (Wall St Journal op-ed w/ Elizabeth Price Foley) davidbrivkin.com/what-jack-smit…