Trump's Strategy to Extend Trial Proceedings Without Complete Immunity
In a recent filing, former President Donald Trump raised concerns about potential vulnerability to blackmail and extortion for future presidents if the Supreme Court does not uphold his broad immunity stance against election subversion charges. Learn more about Trump's approach to delaying his trial and the implications of his legal arguments.
Former President Donald Trump expressed concern to the Supreme Court about potential risks for future presidents, suggesting they could face threats of blackmail and extortion while in office if the justices did not agree to his strong stance on immunity from special counsel Jack Smith's election subversion charges.
At the same time, the expected 2024 GOP White House candidate proposed an alternative approach for the justices. In case they were not willing to support his broad interpretation of presidential immunity, he suggested a different path that would still help him achieve his goal of postponing a trial until after the November election.
Trump's latest Supreme Court brief makes several references to statements made by Justice Brett Kavanaugh before he was nominated to the Supreme Court, possibly appealing to his previous experience.
Peter Navarro at a Miami, Florida, gas station on March 19, 2024.
Peter Navarro at a Miami, Florida, gas station on March 19, 2024.
CNN
Related article
Ex-Trump aide Peter Navarro begins serving prison sentence after historic contempt prosecution
Trump is now presenting his strong arguments for presidential immunity to the Supreme Court. The oral arguments are set for April 25, after the justices agreed to review the issue.
In his message to the justices, Trump stated that if they were not prepared to grant him complete immunity from Smith's election subversion prosecution, they should refer the case back to lower courts for further review. This action would delay the trial for several months, allowing for a determination on whether any form of partial immunity would be applicable in his situation.
The conservative majority of the court could use an alternative route to limit the special counsel's power without giving full immunity to former presidents. Trump's lawyers pointed out that no court has considered immunity in this case and applying any immunity doctrine set by the Supreme Court may require more information about the specific conduct being charged.
The high court is entering uncharted legal territory with significant implications for future presidents. In addition to this, there is a sense of urgency for the court to make a decision promptly. The decision to take on the case has created challenges in starting the trial before the end of the year.
Trump argues that denying immunity claim would have severe consequences for the presidency.
In the most recent update, the ex-president and expected GOP candidate for president reiterated his strong belief in presidential immunity, despite lower courts disagreeing with him.
After facing defeats in two lower courts, he took his case to the high court, emphasizing that the outcome will not only impact his own legal situation, but also set a precedent for all future presidents.
Couy Griffin on January 6, 2021.
Couy Griffin on January 6, 2021.
From Cowboys for Trump
Related article
The Supreme Court has decided not to review a ruling that led to the removal of a New Mexico official from office due to involvement in the January 6 insurrection.
In a new brief, former President Trump's attorneys expressed concerns about the implications of the court's decision on presidential immunity. They highlighted that if immunity is not upheld, future Presidents may face the threat of criminal prosecution after leaving office whenever they make politically controversial decisions.
"That would completely change the way the Presidency works and harm our country," they stated.
He also argued that the Supreme Court had not previously discussed the specific issue at hand in this case. Trump believes that he can only be prosecuted for a crime if Congress impeaches and convicts him first for the same offense. The Supreme Court did not request the parties to discuss this matter in their arguments.
Appeals to a key justice’s past experiences
Trump’s brief repeatedly cited statements from Kavanaugh, who joined the court in 2018.
When Kavanaugh wrote the legal commentary that Trump is now quoting, he was discussing the possibility of criminal investigations and prosecutions of presidents who are currently in office. However, Trump's legal team believes that the same principles can be applied to past presidents as well.
A general view of Trump Tower in New York City, U.S., October 1, 2023.
A general view of Trump Tower in New York City, U.S., October 1, 2023.
David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters
Related article
Trump’s failure to secure a bond could put his New York properties on the chopping block
One citation comes from a 2009 law review article that was based on a speech given by Kavanaugh when he was a judge on the DC Circuit. In the speech, Kavanaugh expressed his belief that a President who is worried about an ongoing criminal investigation is likely to not perform well in their role. He mentioned drawing from his experiences as both a judge and a former member of the executive branch, where he worked in the White House Counsel’s Office.
Kavanaugh's remarks focused on the potential impact of criminal investigations on sitting presidents. However, Trump's legal team argued on Tuesday that the same idea applies even if the investigation is put on hold until the President leaves office.
The new brief mentions an article written by Kavanaugh in 1998 while he was working on the independent counsel investigation of President Bill Clinton. In the article, Kavanaugh stated that the decision to prosecute or not prosecute a President is inherently a political one.
Trump told the justices on Tuesday that this statement is also relevant to former Presidents, especially one who is a potential candidate to replace the current President who is pursuing legal action against him.
Editor's P/S:
The article reveals the ongoing legal battle surrounding former President Donald Trump's claim to presidential immunity from a special counsel's election subversion charges. Trump argues that immunity is essential to protect future presidents from the threat of blackmail and extortion, while the Supreme Court faces the challenge of navigating uncharted legal territory. The article highlights Trump's strategy of appealing to Justice Brett Kavanaugh's past statements on the potential impact of criminal investigations on presidents, drawing parallels between current and former presidents.
As the Supreme Court prepares for oral arguments in April, the outcome of this case has far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches. The court's decision will set a precedent for the prosecution of future presidents and could potentially reshape the way in which presidents are held accountable for their actions while in office. The article underscores the urgency of the court's decision, as the upcoming presidential election looms on the horizon, adding another layer of political complexity to the legal proceedings. potential crimes committed by former presidents.
