WASHINGTON, DC — Donald Trump appeared in federal court Tuesday for an oral hearing. argument Regarding the president's possible immunity from prosecution by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
During lively arguments that lasted more than an hour, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided that Trump's lawyer, John, said his actions were within the scope of his official duties and therefore immune from prosecution.・I pressed Mr. Sauer's claim. As president.
“Allowing prosecution of the president's official conduct opens a Pandora's box from which this country will never recover,” Sauer told the court.
The panel consisted of Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by the late President George H.W. Bush, and Judges Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, appointed by President Joe Biden. Polls predict that Biden will face Trump in November.
Throughout much of the hearing, the judges peppered Sauer with hypothetical situations in which the president might face criminal charges, such as ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent. Sauer pointed to the Constitution's impeachment clause, arguing that the Constitution requires that a president first be impeached and convicted by Congress.
Sauer said that even if the president were granted immunity, the Constitution protects the president from being indicted for crimes for which he was acquitted by the Senate.
The judges did not seem to accept those arguments.
As Mr. Smith and Mr. Trump looked on, prosecutor Jack Pierce argued that Mr. Trump's claim of presidential immunity would put him above the law.
Although the president has a unique constitutional role, he is not above the law. The principle of separation of powers, the text of the Constitution, history, precedent, and the doctrine of immunity all point to the conclusion that former presidents do not enjoy immunity from prosecution.
Sauer countered that presidential immunity does not put the president above the law, calling it “more rhetoric than reality,” but that it is an important element of the law for good reason. .
“The Supreme Court…will explain.”[s] The claim that immunity allows officials to be above the law is “rhetorically appalling, but completely unjustified,'' and continues, “The U.S. Constitution's separation of powers, executive powers clause, and impeachment clause… , these are fundamental and fundamental.” It is our country's law. ”
Sauer also cited the Federalist Papers and Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion. Marbury vs Madison The president stands by his claim that he is immune from lawsuits.
One judge briefly questioned the legality of Smith's appointment. A court session will be held in December. simple A lawsuit filed by lawyers for former Attorney General Ed Meese says Attorney General Merrick Garland's appointment of Smith as special counsel was unconstitutional and requires the court to dismiss his charges against Trump. I argued that it would not.
However, Mr. Sauer chose not to pursue the issue of the Appointments Clause during the discussion.
Mr. Childs and Mr. Pang cited arguments in amicus briefs filed by American Oversight, suggesting that a lower court might rule that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue of immunity. The continuation of the trial will be forced. In that scenario, President Trump would not be able to raise the issue of immunity until after a jury trial and possible conviction.
However, the Supreme Court will likely consider this issue.
Given the expedited timeline, a verdict could be reached within weeks before the trial begins on March 4. However, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to take up the issue of immunity.
The case is us vs trumpNo. 23-3228 of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Bradley Jay is Breitbart News' Capitol Hill correspondent. Follow him on X/Twitter. @BradleyAJay.
