James Petrila,

James Petrila is a former adjunct professor at George Washington University School of Law and a former lawyer with the National Security Agency and the CIA. He currently serves as a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and hosts the podcast

Biography:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/25/supreme-court-immunity-ruling-cia/

72%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermines the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
Analysis.OverallConflictOfInterestScore * 0.3F + Analysis.OverallBiasScore * 0.3F + Analysis.DeceptivenessScore * 0.3F + Analysis.ReadabilityScore * 0.1F

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

The Daily's Verdict

This author has a mixed reputation for journalistic standards. It is advisable to fact-check, scrutinize for bias, and check for conflicts of interest before relying on the author's reporting.

Bias

80%

Examples:

  • An additional sweetener for future presidents is the ability to effectively extend immunity to any participants in their illegal projects. The Trump decision emphasizes that the president's pardon authority is absolute.
  • A president may direct the CIA, or a private paramilitary organization similar to Russian mercenary Yevgeniy Prigozhin's Wagner Group, to engage in illegal activities.
  • Decades of reform have attempted to overcome the issue of executive overreach and establish congressional oversight. The early CIA overthrew duly elected leaders and disregarded Congress during the same period.
  • The court's decision in Trump v. United States has created a situation that gives the president supreme authority to execute 'Official acts' even if they are illegal, but does not hold him responsible for them.

Conflicts of Interest

100%

Examples:

  • An additional sweetener for future presidents is the ability to effectively extend immunity to any participants in their illegal projects. The Trump decision emphasizes that the president's pardon authority is absolute.

Contradictions

80%

Examples:

  • A president may direct the CIA, or a private paramilitary organization similar to Russian mercenary Yevgeniy Prigozhin's Wagner Group, to engage in illegal activities.
  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor posited in her dissent that the president could command the Navy's SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and remain immune from prosecution.
  • The court's decision in Trump v. United States has created a situation that gives the president supreme authority to execute 'Official acts' even if they are illegal, but does not hold him responsible for them.

Deceptions

30%

Examples:

  • An additional sweetener for future presidents is the ability to effectively extend immunity to any participants in their illegal projects. The Trump decision emphasizes that the president's pardon authority is absolute.
  • A president could also order the director of the CIA not to brief Congress on such activities.
  • Whether the goal is to dispatch private paramilitary teams to the southern border with 'shoot to kill' orders to prevent illegal crossings; use private hires to hack political opponents; or provide armed support to prevent the counting of electoral votes under the guise of 'election integrity,' ordering any of these illegal activities would constitute an 'Official act.'

Recent Articles

Supreme Court Rulings on Presidential Immunity: Trump and CIA Cases Reveal Concerns for American Democracy

Supreme Court Rulings on Presidential Immunity: Trump and CIA Cases Reveal Concerns for American Democracy

Broke On: Monday, 29 July 2024 In a pair of landmark rulings, the Supreme Court has set precedents for presidential immunity, sparking debate over accountability and power. In June 2024, the Court granted former President Trump absolute immunity from criminal prosecution while in office. Critics warn this could shield future presidents from accountability. In July 2024, Justice Sotomayor dissented against a ruling on CIA involvement in rendition and interrogation programs during the Bush administration, expressing concerns about unchecked presidential power.