Ex-Trump White House lawyer predicts crushing defeat at Supreme Court

President Trump’s former lawyer predicts the Supreme Court will rule unanimously against the president’s claim that the 45th president is immune from criminal prosecution.

Ty Cobb, who was the White House special counsel when Trump tried to evade the investigation led by Robert Mueller, spoke Tuesday after an appeals court ruled against Trump.

“The immunity case should be 9-0 in the Supreme Court,” Cobb told this column. “It is clear that the president does not have immunity from criminal prosecution. You are considering arguments that are unprecedented and are not found anywhere in the Constitution.”

Cobb went on to say that emphatically rejecting Trump’s claims “will be their decision, whether it be now or after he is convicted, if he is convicted.” insisted.

But Cobb highlighted the legal and political stakes, noting that if Trump were to win this year’s election before the legal process is complete, he would likely terminate the ongoing federal case against him. .

Trump has slammed the appeals court’s ruling.

“Without executive privilege, the president loses his power and prestige, and under some leaders, no power at all,” President Trump complained on Tuesday’s Truth Social. The presidency will be occupied by another government agency. ”

He also reposted a statement from press secretary Stephen Chan in which Trump’s legal team promised to appeal the decision “to protect the office of the president and the Constitution.”

The backdrop is the criminal case against Trump led by special counsel Jack Smith over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Smith alleges that President Trump’s actions, including the post-election and January 6, 2021 Capitol riots, violate four criminal statutes. The charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to violate rights, as well as two counts of obstructing an official proceeding.

In response, Trump’s team argued that Trump should be immune from prosecution.

Their argument in this regard has three main pillars. The first is that Trump’s actions amounted to “official acts” in his role as president and therefore were not subject to prosecution. Second, prosecuting Trump would place undue constraints on future presidents and could invite partisan prosecutions after he leaves office. And third, if the president is acquitted by Congress in impeachment proceedings of the same act, he cannot be convicted in a criminal court.

The appellate panel, made up of two judges appointed by President Biden and one appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, gave little credence to these claims.

The judges said, “It is unacceptable for the presidential palace to continue to hold a former president above the law.”they concluded that 57 page judgment President Trump’s claim of immunity is “unsupported by precedent, history, or the text or structure of the Constitution,” the statement said.

The Supreme Court is currently at a critical juncture.

Tuesday’s ruling essentially requires President Trump to quickly appeal to the high court if he wants to keep the underlying litigation frozen.

The Trump team’s actions so far have made it clear that it wants to delay the four trials he faces for as long as possible, especially extending the process beyond the date of the general election, when he is expected to win.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices nominated by Trump himself.

But many legal experts believe that is still unlikely to uphold Trump’s immunity claim, given the obvious flaws in that argument that were revealed Tuesday.

But the high court could take its time considering the case or rule on very narrow grounds.

The justices also find themselves in a double spotlight as they schedule oral arguments in another Trump-related case on Thursday. The latter case concerns whether President Trump is disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits anyone “engaged in insurrection or insurrection” from serving as president.

Todd Belt, director of the political management program at George Washington University’s School of Political Management, said there would be “tremendous consequences” if the high court rules in Trump’s favor in the immunity case.

Such a ruling means “effectively a monarchy, where the president can do whatever he wants,” Belt said.

But from a political perspective, Belt pointed to how much Republican primary voters have rallied around Trump following his indictment.

Citing research from his own university, he also noted that there are widely differing views on the individual cases against Trump. The New York state lawsuit stemming from payments to adult actress Stormy Daniels is far less serious and more serious than the federal lawsuit over Jan. 6 and the Georgia lawsuit over allegations of election interference in that state. It is believed that there is a political dimension.

Of course, it’s possible that Trump could be acquitted in any or all of the trials, an outcome that would almost certainly boost his hopes of returning to the White House next January.

But a trial and conviction anywhere could be seismic, even if the case is on appeal by Election Day.

a Bloomberg/Morning Consult Poll A poll released last week found that 53% of registered voters in seven major states would not vote for Trump if he was convicted.

For now, President Trump’s critics are pinning their hopes on the Supreme Court on the immunity issue.

Rick Tyler, a Republican strategist and Trump critic, said asking the high court for such broad immunity would be the same as “waiving the obligation to breathe air.”

“He is a citizen of the United States. He was a citizen of the United States before and during his presidency, and he remains a citizen of the United States after he becomes president. The same laws apply to him as other people.”

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.