“The president cannot function, & the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence,” the brief said, “if the president faces #criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office.” [coups aren’t official acts]
The brief, #Trump’s main submission to the justices before the case is argued on April 25, continued to press an expansive understanding of #PresidentialImmunity, one that it said was required by the very structure of the #Constitution.
“The question of a former president’s #criminal#immunity presents grave constitutional questions that strike at the heart of the separation of power,” the brief said.
#Legal experts said #Trump was unlikely to prevail but added that how & when #SCOTUS rejects his arguments will effectively determine whether & when Trump’s #trial, which had been scheduled to start March 4, will proceed.
When #SCOTUS agreed to hear the case last month, it set what it called an expedited schedule. But it was not particularly fast, culminating in oral arguments some 7 wks later, on Apr 25. That #delay represented a significant victory for #Trump.
Even if the court then moves w/considerable speed [not bloody likely] & issues a categorical decision against Trump w/in a month, the #trial would most likely not start until at least the fall, well into the heart of the presidential campaign.
If #SCOTUS does not rule until late June or sends the case back to the lower courts for further consideration of the scope of any #immunity, the #trial might not take place until after the election.
If #Trump prevails in the #election, he could order the #DOJ to drop the charges.
When #SCOTUS agreed to hear the case, it said it would decide:“Whether & if so to what extent does a fmr president enjoy #PresidentialImmunity from #criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve #OfficialActs during his tenure in office.”
That sentence has been closely scrutinized. On the one hand, it seemed to exclude from consideration #Trump’s argument that his #acquittal at his 2nd #impeachment, on charges that he incited #insurrection, blocked any prosecution on similar charges.
On the other hand, it appeared to leave open the possibility that the court might draw distinctions — or ask lower courts to — between #OfficialActs & private ones.
…a 3-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, …unanimously rejected his arg that he may not be prosecuted for actions he took while in office. The panel, made up of 1 #Republican appointee & 2 #Democratic ones, said #Trump became an ordinary #citizen in the eyes of #criminal#law after leaving office.
“For the purpose of this #criminal case, fmr President #Trump has become #citizenTrump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel wrote. “But any executive #immunity that may have protected him while he served as #president no longer protects him against this prosecution.”
When the case was argued in the appeals court, a lawyer for Trump argued that former presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution even for murders they ordered while in office.
If #Trump’s “radical claim were accepted, it would upend understandings about presidential #accountability that have prevailed throughout history while undermining #democracy & the rule of #law — particularly where, as here, a fmr president is alleged to have committed #crimes to remain in office despite losing an #election, thereby seeking to subvert constitutional procedures for transferring power & to disenfranchise millions of voters.”
Add comment