Published April 25, 2024
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments on Trump’s presidential immunity claim in Jack Smith’s January 6 case in DC.
The case made its way to the Supreme Court after the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Trump was not immune from prosecution.
Trump’s lawyers previously argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.
John Sauer, a Missouri-based attorney for Trump, gave an opening statement on Thursday and argued that Jack Smith’s indictment uses vague statutes to criminalize “core authority” of the presidency.
Sauer argued that immunity protects past presidents such as George W. Bush and Barack Obama from being prosecuted for crimes they committed while in federal office.
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.thegatewaypundit.com
RELATED: US Supreme Court divided on whether Trump can be prosecuted
Published April 25, 2024
For nearly three hours on Thursday, the Supreme Court weighed whether former presidents are immune from prosecution and what exactly it means if they are.
Its answer will determine whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election.
Whatever the decision, each justice indicated that it would shape US democracy for years to come.
“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
The case, heard in a special session one day after the court’s last scheduled argument of this term, hinges on Mr Trump’s claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges for actions committed while in office.
According to Mr Trump, this immunity shields him from criminal charges brought by US Special Counsel Jack Smith that he allegedly attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
That trial will remain on hold until the court issues its decision, expected in June.
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.bbc.com
RELATED: Donald Trump had a fantastic day in the Supreme Court today
It’s unclear if the Court will explicitly hold that Trump could commit crimes with impunity, or if they’ll just delay his trial so long that it doesn’t matter.
Then-President Donald Trump shakes hands with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who Trump placed on the Supreme Court.Getty Images
Published April 25, 2024
Thursday’s argument in Trump v. United Stateswas a disaster for Special Counsel Jack Smith, and for anyone who believes that the president of the United States should be subject to prosecution if they commit a crime.
At least five of the Court’s Republicans seemed eager to, at the very least, permit Trump to delay his federal criminal trial for attempting to steal the 2020 election until after this November’s election. And the one GOP appointee who seemed to hedge the most, Chief Justice John Roberts, also seemed to think that Trump enjoys at least some immunity from criminal prosecution.
Much of the Court’s Republican majority, moreover, seemed eager not simply to delay Trump’s trial until after the election, but to give him extraordinarily broad immunity from criminal prosecution should he be elected once again. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, argued that when a president exercises his official powers, he cannot be charged under any federal criminal statute at all, unless that statute contains explicit language saying that it applies to the president.
As Michael Dreeben, the lawyer arguing on behalf of Smith’s prosecution team, told the Court, only two federal laws meet this standard. So Kavanaugh’s rule would amount to near complete immunity for anything a president did while exercising their executive authority.
READ FULL ARTICLE
SOURCE: www.vox.com
