The U.S. Supreme Court has signaled that Donald Trump's claim for immunity from prosecution may be dragged out, potentially jeopardizing any chance of a pre-election trial on charges of illegally trying to stay in power. There is.
The justices hearing arguments in Washington on Thursday expressed skepticism about the former president's sweeping claims to immunity for his efforts to overturn Joe Biden's election victory. But Chief Justice John Roberts, the man at the center, said he disagreed with some of the appeals court's opinion allowing the trial to proceed and discussed sending the case back to a lower court for a closer look at the allegations against Trump. did.
“The Court of Appeals did not focus on what kind of conduct we were talking about, what kind of documents we were talking about,” Roberts said.
The other leading judge, Brett Kavanaugh, said he was concerned about the long-term effects of leaving the president vulnerable to prosecution for acts of official conduct. He said he was concerned “that it could be reversed and used against the current president, the next president, and the next president and the president after that.”
Read more: Judges uphold Trump's claim of president's voluntary pardon power
Special Counsel Jack Smith has little time to push President Trump to a jury in Washington before voters head to the polls on Nov. 5. The judge overseeing the case said he would have three months to prepare for a trial that could last two years. Up to 3 months. Polls show that a conviction of Mr. Trump could hurt the Republican candidate's chances of winning.
The timeline is all the more important because there are widespread expectations that President Trump will take the unusual step of ordering the Justice Department to drop the charges if he retakes the White House in January.
The 2024 election was not mentioned during the two-hour and 40-minute argument, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett acknowledged that Smith “has expressed concerns about speed and a desire to move forward.” There was also a scene.
“Not a monarch”
The case is one of four indictments against President Trump, including one already being heard in New York state court over hush money payments to porn stars. President Trump has also claimed presidential immunity in these cases, even though many of the allegations involve alleged actions while a civilian.
The Supreme Court did not address whether former presidents have immunity from prosecution. The court ruled in 1982 that, with respect to civil suits brought by private parties, the president has complete immunity for acts committed within the “periphery” of his official duties.
President Trump has argued that former presidents have so-called absolute immunity for official actions. His lawyers say everything he did in the run-up to the January 6 riot. Among them are allegations that he promoted false claims of election fraud, pressured the Justice Department to conduct a false investigation, and urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the certification of Biden's victory. Applying pressure and inciting the crowd to storm the Capitol was part of his job as president.
The court's liberal justices were skeptical. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked, “What prevents a president from doing whatever he wants without fear of criminal prosecution?”
Justice Elena Kagan said the Founders knew how to provide immunity in the Constitution, but they failed to do so for the president.
“It's not that surprising, they were rebelling against a monarch who claimed to be above the law,” she said. ”
barrett question
Liberals received some support from Barrett, who questioned Trump's lawyers' argument that a former president cannot be prosecuted unless he is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
“There are many other people who could be impeached, including the nine people sitting on this court,” she told President Trump's lawyer John Sauer. It also indicts a number of other officers who are subject to impeachment. ”
“Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there would be no presidency as we know it,” Sauer told the justices, echoing claims Trump made outside court.
Smith argues that all presidents up until Trump understood that they would be subject to prosecution for acts of officialdom after leaving office.
“His novel theory would exempt Smith from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and, in this case, conspiring to use fraud to overturn election results and perpetuate power.” said attorney Michael Dreeben. The firm that argued this case.
Mr. Trump later called the exchange “a very good session.”
“Ideally, I'm going to do all the right things, including going to war and ending wars and sometimes even starting wars, but I know that as president I have to make some very difficult decisions.” he said in an interview with Newsmax. However, even if you make a mistake, you cannot go to criminal trial. ”
The case is Trump v. United States, 22-939.
–With assistance from Emily Birnbaum and Chris Strom.
(Updates with President Trump's comments in last two paragraphs.)
See more articles like this at bloomberg.com
©2024 Bloomberg LP
Unlock a world of benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time inventory tracking, breaking news and personalized newsfeeds, it's all here, just a click away. Log in here!
