WASHINGTON – Federal appeals court judges on Tuesday granted former President Donald Trump immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that led to a series of events that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. He questioned this widespread claim.
The all-female panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit listed several options for sentencing, but said nothing to suggest it would accept Trump’s claim of immunity.
The court may issue a decision that definitively resolves the immunity issue and allows the trial to proceed quickly, or it may issue a more limited decision that may leave some issues unresolved. There is a possibility. It could also simply rule that President Trump has no right to appeal at this stage of the case.
Trump arrived at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., a few minutes before oral arguments began at 9:30 a.m. and sat down at his lawyer’s table. He was mostly silent during the defense’s argument, but he began to become distraught when the prosecuting attorney spoke. He was seen writing a note on a yellow legal pad and handing it to his lawyer.
Special prosecutor Jack Smith also attended the hearing, which lasted just over an hour.
The case is one of four criminal charges facing Trump, who is the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination and is fighting in multiple courts.
With Trump running for president again, the question remains whether the Washington trial, originally scheduled for March, can be held before the election. Mr. Smith called on the court to act quickly so the trial can proceed as scheduled.
The appeals court is hearing the case on an expedited schedule, so a decision could be issued quickly, perhaps in time for Trump’s trial to begin on time.
Judge Florence Pan quickly peppered Trump’s lawyers with hypothetical situations in which, under Trump’s theory, the president could not be prosecuted.
She asked whether the president could be prosecuted for selling pardons or military secrets or ordering the assassination of a political opponent.
“I understand your position that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for any official act in his capacity, even if it is done for an illegal or unconstitutional purpose, is that correct? ?” Pan said.
Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, responded that such a prosecution would only occur if the president was first impeached and convicted by the Senate.
“For example, the prosecutor’s office’s position is to authorize charges in the Western District of Texas after President Biden leaves office for alleged border mismanagement,” Sauer added.
Justice Karen Henderson, the only Republican appointee on the panel, cited another part of the Constitution that requires the president to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
“I think it’s paradoxical that the constitutional obligation to see to the faithful enforcement of the law should excuse criminal law violations,” she says.
Justice Michelle Childs noted the fact that President Richard Nixon was pardoned upon leaving office, and asked whether anyone, whether convicted or not in an impeachment proceeding, thinks a president will not be prosecuted after leaving office. I mentioned this as a data point that suggests there is no such thing.
Mr. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
Mr. Childs said his pardon indicates “an assumption that there is a possibility of prosecution.”
Sauer said the president could be prosecuted for purely personal actions, but for questioning the election results and urging Congress to block certification of Biden’s victory. They argued that because the act constituted an “official act,” it was exempt based on the Constitution’s principle of separation of powers. ” when he was president.
Later in the discussion, Henderson seemed more supportive of Trump, expressing concern that a ruling that the president has no immunity could lead to politically-driven prosecutions of future presidents.
“How do you write an opinion that stops the floodgates?” she said.
He added that the Justice Department has previously acknowledged that “criminal charges are inevitably political.”
James Pearce, a lawyer who argued on behalf of Mr. Smith, said Mr. Trump’s investigation “does not reflect what we see in the future as a retaliatory tit-for-tat shakeup against the Tutt prosecution.”
He added: “There has never been an allegation that a sitting president had relationships with private individuals and used the levers of power to fundamentally subvert our democratic republic and our electoral system.”
President Trump indicated Monday that he would have President Joe Biden indicted if the courts do not rule in his favor and he wins the presidential election.
Henderson also said the case could be sent back to the trial court to analyze whether Trump’s actions qualify as official acts as president, which could lead to Trump’s immunity claims. He said this could have an impact on the court and delay the trial.
After the altercation, Trump told reporters he had “done nothing wrong” and warned that prosecutors were a “threat to democracy.”
President Trump insisted that his actions were part of the president’s responsibility to fight election fraud, even though there was no evidence of widespread fraud in 2020, and the Trump administration’s own Justice Department at the time I came to this conclusion.
“If it wasn’t me, this case would end there. But sometimes they look at me differently than other people, and that’s very bad for our country,” Trump said. Told.
Whatever happens in the appellate court, the losing party is likely to immediately appeal to the Supreme Court. The judge will then face a decision on whether to take up the case and issue his own ruling, which could happen quickly.
Trump’s appeal stems from a four-count indictment in Washington, including charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Mr. Trump has maintained his innocence.
In December, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s attempt to dismiss the charges on the basis of executive privilege and other constitutional grounds. The case is on hold pending the appeals process.
They cited in part a 1982 Supreme Court decision that upheld presidents’ immunity from civil lawsuits when the underlying conduct concerns actions within the “outer periphery” of the president’s public responsibilities. is quoted. Trump’s team has acknowledged that the former president could be prosecuted for actions unrelated to his official duties.
Mr. Smith, who is prosecuting Mr. Trump, argues that there is no broad immunity that prevents former presidents from prosecuting criminal acts committed while in office.
Additionally, Smith argues in court documents that President Trump’s attempts to “use fraudulent means to block the transfer of power and remain in office” should not be considered official acts.
President Trump also argues that he is barred from any prosecution because he was impeached and acquitted for the same underlying conduct.
Smith countered in his court papers that the Constitution clearly states that a president who is successfully impeached can also be criminally prosecuted. There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that a president who fails to be impeached cannot be prosecuted, he added.
The justices also noted an argument made in a friend-of-the-court brief by the liberal group American Oversight, not Mr. Trump or Mr. Smith, that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal at this stage.
Pan asked Pierce why he didn’t argue that the appeals court can’t hear the appeal at this stage of the case because Trump doesn’t have the right to make a pre-trial request, known as an “interlocutory appeal.” .
“Why don’t you take the position that this appeal should be dismissed on the grounds that it is intermediary? Doesn’t that advance your interests?” Ms Pan said.
Pearce said that was not the “sound analysis” even though it would benefit prosecutors in the short term.
It is unclear from the judge’s questions whether the court will take such an approach, in which case it would likely send the case back to Chutkan for further trial.
