Donald Trump sees the prospect of an upcoming criminal trial in Washington for his role in the insurrection of January 6, 2021 receding. The Supreme Court of the United States indeed agreed, Wednesday, February 28, to examine the question of presidential immunity claimed today by the candidate during the assault on the Capitol and the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election. The Court indicates in a press release that it will examine “whether and, if so, to what extent a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his term in office.”
On February 6, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled in a very well-argued manner that the president then in office did not have such immunity. By claiming the final say on this fundamental point, the Supreme Court is committing to an accelerated procedure. The debate before the nine magistrates – three of whom were appointed under the Trump presidency – will be held in the week of April 23. But their written decision may not come until the end of the session, i.e. on 1er July, almost certainly compromising the holding of the federal trial before the presidential election on November 5.
Special prosecutor Jack Smith is considering a two- to three-month trial, due to the extreme density of the facts, which extend from election night in November 2020 until January 6, 2021. Delaying procedures risk paying off , postponing any serious trial until after the elections, while Donald Trump has made no secret that he would pardon himself if he returns to the White House in January 2025.
“Mr. Trump’s Radical Demand”
According to the AP, the Supreme Court has already ruled that presidents are exempt from civil liability for official acts, and the former president’s lawyers argue that this protection should be extended to criminal prosecutions. “The lack of criminal immunity for official acts threatens the very ability of the president to function properly”specifies the file filed by Donald Trump, which adds that “any decision by the president on a politically controversial issue would expose himself to the threat of indictment by the opposing party after a change of government. “.
In his brief to the Supreme Court, prosecutor Jack Smith points out that “It would be a striking paradox if the president, who alone has the constitutional duty to “see that the laws are faithfully executed,” were the only one capable of defying these laws with impunity.” He believes that civil immunity is possible because of criminal liability which has never been debated, recalling that Ronald Reagan was the subject of a criminal investigation – without final indictment – in the affair of the deliveries of arms to Iran from 1985. For Jack Smith, the pardon given by Gerald Ford to Richard Nixon (who was not indicted) after his resignation following the Watergate scandal was a recognition de facto that there was no criminal immunity.
You have 54.96% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.