for claims against the President, and the defense of qualified immunity for claims against all other government officials. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Thus, plaintiff must overcome these defenses in order to establish that he has stated a claim upon which relief can by granted by this Court. For the following reasons, plaintiff has failed to do so here as to both the President and Attorney General Gonzales. A. Absolute Immunity As referenced above, the doctrine of absolute immunity serves to bar—absolutely—suits against the President of the United States, in his individual capacity, whenever he is acting within the scope of his official authority. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (<HOLDING>); see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 694,
recognizing absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the o uter perimeter of his official responsibility holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity holding that nasd disciplinary officers are entitled to absolute immunity from further prosecution for civil liability for them actions taken within the outer scope of them official duties recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys of the texas medical board recognizing that absolute immunity is immunity from charges of either constitutional or statutory violations