The U.S. Supreme Court hinted that it might support Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for overturning the results of the 2020 election.
In Arizona, 18 people have been charged with trying to unlawfully get the state’s electoral votes for Trump, even though Joe Biden won the state by a small margin.
Trump himself was named as someone who was part of the plan, but he hasn’t been charged.
The Supreme Court seems willing to make the federal criminal case against Trump smaller, which is similar to what’s happening in Arizona.
They say this is because presidents should have some protection from the law for things they do as part of their job.
Trump is about to challenge Democrat Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election in a rematch.
He’s currently on a trial in New York for something that happened before he became president, where he’s accused of lying about paying a porn star in 2016.
Trump commented on the Supreme Court hearing, “The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity.”
He added, “I hear the meeting was quite amazing, quite amazing – and the justices were on their game.”
The questions raised by the justices during the hearing about the potential impact of their ruling on future presidents highlight the distinctive nature of Trump’s case compared to the prosecution of his lower-ranking associates.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Trump says, “This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country.”
In recent months, Republican officials and Trump allies in four states have faced charges for falsely presenting themselves as legitimate presidential electors during the certification of the 2020 election results by Congress.
In Arizona, charges were brought against 11 individuals who falsely claimed to be Trump electors, along with Trump’s former personal lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
Giuliani, Eastman, and Meadows are also facing charges in Georgia, where Trump tried to overturn his narrow loss. Three individuals accused of being fake Trump electors in Georgia have also been charged.
Additionally, state attorneys general in Michigan and Nevada have brought criminal cases against individuals accused of being fake electors. However, these cases do not involve Trump or his top advisers.
Attorney Manny Arora, representing Kenneth Chesebro says, “The problem is we don’t have any clear guidelines or clear law as to what crosses the line.”
During the Supreme Court hearing, conservative justices seemed inclined towards further analysis on distinguishing official from private conduct.
Barrett asked Michael Dreeben, “Is there another option for the special counsel to just proceed based on the private conduct and drop the official conduct?”
However, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson raised questions suggesting a potential path for Trump’s trial to proceed, even if some immunity is recognized.
Add Comment