SCOTUS hears presidential immunity arguments in relation to Trump

the United States Supreme Court seemingly skeptical of former president Trump's claim of absolute immunity but several justices signaled reservations about the charges that could cause a series of delays as you've indicated this case has huge implications for the presidency for the future of the.

Presidency for the future of the country in My View From KTVU Fox 2 News this is the four an historic day at the US Supreme Court welcome to the four I'm Christian C and I'm Heather Holmes the justice is hearing arguments on the issue of presidential immunity and whether former president Trump can avoid prosecution.

For charges that he tried to undo his 2020 election loss ktvs Jana kyama joining us now live from The Newsroom with details on today's dramatic day in court Jenna Christian and Heather this is a case that goes to the fundamental core of how we Define Presidential Power and also whether Productions while someone is in office extends after they.

Leave office we will hear argument this morning in case 23939 Trump versus United States Mr sour Donald Trump's Attorney D John sour began the hearing with his opening statements without presidential immunity from Criminal prosecution there can be no presidency as we know it for 234 years of American history no president.

Was ever prosecuted for his official acts s claimed Donald Trump's actions were official when Trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor Trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office but the government's attorney Michael dban said such presidential.

Immunity has no foundation in the Constitution or the Supreme Court's history this court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official his novel Theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery treason sedition murder and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election.

And perpetuate himself in power the Supreme Court Justices acknowledged the magnitude of the hearing and for more than two and a half hours Wednesday they grilled attorneys on both sides Mr s uh in assessing the uh uh official acts of a president do you differentiate between the president acting as president and the president acting as candidate.

Trump's attorney said immunity should not cover private acts but should cover official acts and the organization of alternate slates of electors was Trump taking official action Justice katangi Brown Jackson asked about the dangers of immunity if the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table wouldn't there be a significant risk.

That future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office Justice Elena Kagan questioned if a president ordered a military coup would it be considered immune Trump's attorney said it would be an official act but should be addressed through impeachment the justi has pressed Trump's attorney on the question.

Of how to distinguish between official and unofficial acts no man's Above the Law and that the president can be prosecuted after he leaves office for his private conduct is that right we agree with that and then the question becomes as we've been exploring here today a little bit about how to segregate private from official conduct.

That may or may not uh enjoy some immunity the justices will now confer within a conference they could try to expedite this decision they do have the option to reject the immunity plea meaning it would go to trial they could accept the immunity which would put a complete halt to the case or they can also decide to hand it back down to a.

Lower court and that would cause a delay in the trial and push it probably past the November election of course if Trump wins that election he could order the Department of Justice to drop the case that's right of course Janna politics always a part of all of this or are the questions around that as well three of the Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch.

Kavanaugh and Barrett all appointed by the former president was there any indication in their questioning of how they might rule well it was interesting and obviously a lot of scrutiny there Gorsuch suggested that if presidents fear prosecution they could pardon them themselves um which might have uh seemed to be quite favorable to the Trump.

Attorney Barrett challenged Trump's attorney on his assertion that a former president would need to be impeached and then convicted before a criminal prosecution so it was interesting to see their lines of questioning certainly we'll be uh waiting to see how the final vote comes out when it's announced yes all right something we will be closely.

Watching Janna Kama in the news room thank you

Sharing is caring!