Could Trump be charged with a criminal offense for his actions related to the COVID-19 pandemic? Recently Carl Bernstein called Donald Trump a &quot;homicidal President&quot;: We are witnessing a homicidal president convening ― purposefully ― a homicidal assembly to help him get re-elected as president of the United States instead of protecting the health and welfare of the people of the United States including his own supporters whose lives he is willing to sacrifice In recordings of Bob Woodward's interviews with President Trump, he revealed that he intentionally misled the public about the severity of COVID-19. In public addresses he claimed that it would be no worse than the flu, while behind the scenes he admitted that he knew it would be much worse. Furthermore, the administration's policies were more consistent with the milder assessment. Scientists months ago estimated that thousands of lives would have been saved if the administration acted sooner. Could Trump be considered criminally liable (e.g. something like reckless endangerment) for many of these deaths, and charged when he leaves office? Assuming this would ordinarily be some kind of criminal offense, would he be indemnified as a result of his official duties? How about encouraging people to attend his campaign rallies during the pandemic without wearing masks? This endangers not only the attendees, but everyone they come into contact with after the rally. These also often violate state regulations against large gatherings. I'm sure I could come up with other things that he's done that have endangered lives and caused many unnecessary deaths due to COVID-19, I just can't remember them at the moment. Could his policies and/or actions be viewed as violating his oath of office? Is there any legal consequence to that? Before the revelations of the Woodward interviews, many of his actions could be viewed as simply ignorant. But he's made it clear that he understood the consequences, and intentionally ignored and downplayed them.
There is no general legal obligations be truthful Such an obligation only arises where specifically called out by law or where there is a relationship of trust between the parties, e.g. they are negotiating a contract, they have a doctor-patient relationship etc. In any event, the President has legal immunity for actions performed as President. Presidents answer for their misdeeds at the ballot box, not the courthouse.
Possibly, but not likely, but as always facts and circumstances matter, though Trump was not very concise in what he said. First let's start off from the the transcript of what Trump said. from Politifact: "I will give you (Warren) a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian." Looking at this as a contract, to have a contract you need five elements: offer, acceptance, consideration/quid por quo, capacity, and legality. It seems that all are pretty straight forward as being met except valid offer and consideration. For the offer, you could argue Trump said it as a joke, but given that he said it to the whole world and is wealthy enough to back it up where as an average Joe would not have the cash. This comes down to what a reasonable person would have thought. Did Trump's offer seem legitimate, did he rescind before acceptance, did he repeat the offer? All of the fact and circumstances matter as to whether the offer was valid. There is also the issue of what did the contract layout as performance? The vagueness of the contract may be an issue and make the deal illusory. For example, Trump said "a million dollars to your favorite charity" which is different than saying a million dollars to a charity of your choice. Is this Warren's favorite charity when the deal was made, or when the result were tendered, or when paid? Also there is no timeline. When must Trump make the donation? within one week, one year, one century? There is no deadline for Trump to make a donation. Also of note is the contract is for proof Warren is "Indian" (Native American), not specifically Cherokee. For consideration you could arguee that Trump gained proof that Warren was Native American, but the issue is what did Warren gain? You could argue nothing since Trump made the promise for a donation to charity, but you could also argue that Warren gained the joy of seeing a charity get $1,000,000, Trump lose $1,000,000 and the charity was a third party beneficiary which is allowed and is valid consideration. Even if a valid contract existed between the two, there is also the issue of what is considered performance? What does if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian. mean? May Warren be 1% native american or must she be 100% native american, the details are very vague. Since trump created the agreement, any reasonable interpretation by Warren would be permissable under the doctrine of contra-proferendum but then what is reasonable? Again facts and circumstances matter.
A problem with the question is that it uses the loaded term "victim". If you change the question to "Are there actions that you can perform involving another person, which are crimes even if the other person consents to participating in the action", then there are very many. Selling alcohol to a minor; selling heroin to anyone; selling sex in most US jurisdictions; selling firearms to a convicted felon. Also, for a physician to assist a person in suicide, in most states. Formerly in the US, various forms of sexual intercourse were acts that consent did not make legal. Whether or not the person is a "victim" in these cases is open to debate. In the case of physician-assisted suicide in Washington, the doctor is allowed to prescribe (oral) drugs that the person ingests: only a doctor is permitted to do this, both under the DWD Act and as a consequence that only a doctor can prescribe the drugs. There seems to be a belief that it is a crime to assist a person in committing suicide, which is probably correct if the assistance is shooting the person in the head, or in general directly causing the death (thus, "I give you permission to shoot me in the head" doesn't cut it). But from what I can tell, it is not generally against the law in Washington to help a person who commits suicide (e.g. supplying the means of self-dispatching). In some countries, suicide and helping with suicide is illegal, e.g. in Kenya Penal Code 225 says Any person who (a) procures another to kill himself; or (b) counsels another to kill himself and thereby induces him to do so; or (c) aids another in killing himself, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life. No exception is created if the person consents to being aided to kill himself.
It is not a crime in the US. It may be a firing offense depending on the nature of the appointment (that is, what exactly do you mean by &quot;diplomat&quot;?) or at least cause for demotion / reassignment. A diplomat from another country could be declared persona non grata, but again it is not a crime to act contrary to a governmental boycott call, in the US. This follows from the First Amendment.
Yes. The precedent is President Gerald Ford's pardon of his predecessor Richard Nixon in proclamation 4311 before any possible prosecution had started. The pardon was granted specifically to prevent the disturbance of &quot;the tranquility to which the nation has been restored&quot; by &quot;the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States&quot; (emphasis mine). It is noteworthy though that a pardon can be rejected by the recipient, and that there may be good reason to do so, because accepting one is an admission of guilt.1 In the words of the Supreme Court (Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915): There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it [...]. (Again, emphasis mine.) Proactively pardoning large swathes of current and former government officials, family members and other people connected to the Trump administration would therefore be a double-edged sword: It surely may save a lot of the money and headache coming with being the target of an (even unsuccessful!) investigation; but it may also amount to admitting that the Trump administration was essentially a criminal organization. 1 As always, things are a bit less clear-cut when one takes a closer look. Because I googled &quot;prospective pardon&quot; after the correct remark by JBentley I stumbled upon the entirely relevant and eminently readable Congressional Research Service reports on pardons. The first one is a &quot;pardons FAQ&quot;, the second one is a more thorough legal exploration of what pardons actually do. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court and Federal Courts have edged away from a 19th century opinion (Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333, 380-81 (1866)) which viewed a pardon as an all-encompassing expungement. Newer decisions (prominently, Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, 86 (1915) which I quoted) don't.
As mentioned in a comment by @Dancrumb, the exact policies of each local police department will be different, and there are thousands of them. There is a relevant requirement at the Federal level according the Department of Justice, but it is not clear to me to what extent this applies to peers and not just supervisors: An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim's Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so. This charge is often appropriate for supervisory officers who observe uses of excessive force without stopping them, or who actively encourage uses of excessive force but do not directly participate in them.
The consequences for the US are perhaps better addressed at Politics; if you're really interested in those consequences, you can re-post this question there. For the police officer shooting a diplomat, the officer may be charged under state law, whatever is normal for an incident of this type; it doesn't matter whether the person is a US citizen or a diplomat or any other kind of alien, regardless of immigration status or lack thereof. If the person is a diplomat, however, the officer is also liable to be prosecuted under federal law, namely 18 USC 1116, which makes it a crime to kill, among others, a "foreign official"; the definition of that term includes any person of a foreign nationality who is duly notified to the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign government or international organization, and who is in the United States on official business, and any member of his family whose presence in the United States is in connection with the presence of such officer or employee. The characterization of the response "just been revoked" as "clearly legal" is inaccurate; a police officer has no power to revoke diplomatic immunity. In fact, only the diplomat's own country can waive this immunity. The United States cannot do so; it can only expel the diplomat.
US troops deployed to Germany would be covered by the Status of Forces Agreement, which governs jurisdiction. Your question also ignores the nature of the prosecution services in Germany, which do not allow a rogue junior official to file charges at a whim. You would have to assume that at least a state government, if not the federal government, actively pushes the case. (And the federal government could probably take the case away from any state which had such ideas.) If you look for precedents of legal jeopardy, look at the case of Anwar Raslan, a Syrian official convicted of torture in Germany. It is also a closer parallel to the Pinochet case. Finally, the principles underlying such prosecutions were established in Germany but not by Germany. I'm talking of the Nuremberg trials. If German courts were to find the US Army to be a criminal organization, then individual members would be at risk. But as a political scenario, that is absurd.