U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday took issue with the language of the appeals court’s decision denying former President Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim, saying the language was “indicted, so the former president is indicted.” He understands this to mean “there is a possibility.”
Roberts read He recited part of Thursday’s Court of Appeals decision and asked Michael Dreeben, special counsel at the Department of Justice (DOJ), if he agreed with it.
listen:
“The Court of Appeals below, whose decision we are reviewing, has held that “the facts of the charge mean that the former president allegedly acted in violation of the law; Do you agree with that statement? ” Roberts asked.
Dreeben said the ruling “sounds tautologically true, but I want to emphasize that the president’s duty is to see that the law is faithfully executed.”
Mr Roberts agreed that was “tautologically true” and said he was therefore concerned.
“Well, I think this rings tautologically true, and I think that’s the clearest statement of the court’s decision. That’s why I’m concerned,” he said. Ta. “From what I’ve read, it just says that because the former president has been indicted, he can be indicted.”
That is “not the government’s approach,” Dreeben said, adding that “prosecutors will naturally invoke federal criminal law,” and grand juries will vote to indict individuals based on the charges.
Roberts emphasized that it is often easy for prosecutors to obtain indictments from grand juries and expressed concern that prosecutors may not act in good faith when pursuing charges against former presidents.
Well, that’s what I said – I mean, right after that statement in court – the opinion of the court, that’s what they said, but there’s no reason to worry because prosecutors act in good faith, and The grand jury would have returned an indictment, no reason to worry. We have seen how easy it is for prosecutors to get grand juries to indict in many cases, and how easy it is in some cases to rely on a prosecutor’s belief that good faith alone is not enough. I’m not suggesting it here.
The case is trump vs usaUnited States Supreme Court No. 23-939.
