"Trump v. Vance" in the Time of Trump's Bleach Treatment Protocols

     With Trump v. Vance, 19-635 in the Supreme Court of the United States, a case involving issues such as Presidential immunity from criminal process (!!), coming up on May 12 for oral arguments, one notes that recent events, truth much stranger than fiction, have underlined the importance of holding any Chief Executive responsible for at least some of the damage he/she may do, through malice, recklessness, or just plain stupidity.

     As is widely known, Donald Trump recently recommended that people consider using household cleaners (bleach, etc.), not on their kitchen counters, but on themselves, to treat COVID-19; see, e.g., Jason Slotkin, NYC Poison Control Sees Uptick In Calls After Trump's Disinfectant Comments, NPR.org, Apr. 25, 2020, 7:13 p.m. But to hold Trump responsible for anything he does in an official capacity may be difficult, cf., e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (no presidential liability for civil damages for official acts). So starting a needless nuclear war, or invading Iraq though they didn't attack us, or causing Americans to die from swallowing Clorox or injecting Lysol, may all be unpunishable even if the President is responsible.

     Going from Lysol to Lysenko: Jonathan Chait has noticed that Trump's grip on science resembles Joseph Stalin's attachment to biologist Trofim Lysenko's pseudoscientific theories about genetics, see Chait's Why Trump Is Overruling Scientists to Pursue His Pet Coronavirus, New York, Apr. 6, 2020:

Lysenko was able to manipulate communist ideology to discredit mainstream science on ideological grounds. Trump’s hydroxychloroquine claims have done something similar with conservative populism, tapping into the right’s mistrust of bureaucrats and educated elitists. [etc.]

Id. So, whether on the Left, or the Right, any leader, or President, needs to be accountable to the people. American presidents may not be more accountable than Stalin for evils done in an official capacity, cf. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, supra. But even if criminal accountability does not exist for something a President does officially, e.g., urging people to inject bleach as part of a national TV address, there could at least be accountability for unofficial criminal acts, say, if a President were crazy enough actually to inject someone with bleach himself, playing "Dr. Death" despite not having a medical license.
     That horrible latter possibility underlines how important is it to hold a President criminally accountable for unofficial acts he may do during, or may have done before, his Presidency, e.g., sexually assaulting a White House intern (a scenario mentioned in one's own brief in Trump v. Vance), or indulging in financial skulduggery requiring a Congressional subpoena for his records, the scenario (according to New York County D.A. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr.) in 19-635 itself. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (no immunity from civil litigation in federal court for acts prior to and unrelated to taking office) and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (forcing President Nixon to surrender tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials) could be helpful here, in showing that executive privilege is not unlimited.

     Finally, the title of this post reflects, among other things, Gabriel García Márquez's novel Love in the Time of Cholera, a story referencing plague. In our own dark times of plague--and they are very dark, a reality too dark to bleach out of existence--, people may find some temporary emotional relief by name-calling or fun-making, e.g., calling Trump "Clorox Don", or what-have-you. But more important than such wordplay, of course, is to hold our presidents accountable: under the law, not above it. If the Supreme Court refuses to recognize this, "equal justice under law" may have died--showing that COVID-19 is not the only plague, since lawlessness and injustice, in our Republic "of laws, not of men", can be considered plagues in themselves.