The Supreme Court of the United States was skeptical this Thursday of Donald Trump’s request to enjoy absolute judicial immunity for having been president of the country, but there were judges who were inclined not to fully resolve the matter and return it to lower courts. The ruling could have far-reaching repercussions for the executive branch, but also for the multiple legal problems of Trump, candidate for the November presidential elections.
Trump’s immunity in question
In a historic hearing lasting more than two hours, the nine justices (six conservatives and three progressives) questioned Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, and prosecutor Michael Dreeben about the Republican’s potential immunity. The high court must decide whether Trump has absolute immunity for having been president of the country and, therefore, The trial against him pending in a federal court in Washington for electoral interference and the assault on the Capitol must be annulled.
Most judges were skeptical of Trump’s request, considering that Only the actions inherent to the functions of a president are protected by immunity and not those that are personal in nature.. But there were also conservative judges critical of the prosecution’s handling of the case and suggested that they could return the case to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to determine whether Trump’s actions were public or private.
It is in Trump’s best interest to prolong the litigation given that, if he returns to the White House, he could order the Department of Justice to close the federal accusations against him. Instead, The Special Prosecutor’s Office led by Jack Smith pressures the high court to make a quick decision and preparations can be resumed for the trial of the assault on the Capitol, which should have started on March 4 but was suspended due to Trump’s request for immunity.
It is unknown when the Supreme Court will issue its ruling, but it usually publishes its decisions in June, before the summer recess. Although it is not stated in the Constitution or the laws, active presidents of the United States have historically enjoyed immunity from judicial processes related to their functions, to avoid a violation of the separation between the executive and judicial powers.
“Without immunity there can be no presidency”
Questioned by conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump himself, the Republican’s lawyer admitted that some of the actions that the former president carried out after the 2020 elections were “private” in nature and are probably not protected by immunity. John SauerTrump’s lawyer, told the court that “without presidential immunity from criminal proceedings there can be no presidency as we know it.”
“Any current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion from his political rivals as long as he holds office,” Sauer estimated. Later, fellow conservative Samuel Alito pressured the prosecutor with the idea that leaving former presidents unprotected would “destabilize” democracy because it would open the door for new leaders to imprison their predecessors out of revenge.
“A monarch above the law”
The three progressive justices of the Supreme Court were very opposed to Trump’s absolute immunity. Elena Kagan recalled that the drafters of the Constitution opposed the existence of a “monarch” who was “above the law” and Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the pardon that Richard Nixon received after the Watergate scandal shows that former presidents can be prosecuted judicially.
Unlike Trump, however, Nixon was not formally charged with any crime. His successor, Gerald Ford (1974-1977), granted him a preventive pardon for any crimes he might have committed during his presidency to prevent him from being prosecuted in the future, in a controversial decision that divided the country. “Wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would feel emboldened to commit crimes with abandon?” Jackson said.
Kagan asked whether a president who “sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary” should be immune from prosecution and insisted: “What do you think if a president orders the military to carry out a coup?”. Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, responded that these hypotheses “sound very bad,” but “if it is an official action, there needs to be an impeachment and conviction” by Congress before a president can be prosecuted.
The Stormy Daniels bribery trial
Trump complained to reporters in New York before entering a court that is trying him for falsifying business records to conceal a payment to a porn actress to buy her silence over an alleged extramarital affair before the 2016 election. The former president said that the judge presiding over this case did not allow him to attend the hearing in the Supreme Court.
“I would have loved to be there, I should have been there, but this judge didn’t allow it”, lamented the Republican presidential candidate. Without immunity “you become a ceremonial president,” he added. trump. The former US president returned to the Manhattan court this Thursday, where the Prosecutor’s Office continued the interrogation of a tabloid press editor who supported the magnate in his 2016 campaign with positive news and burying the negative ones.
At the beginning of the hearing, the Prosecutor’s Office again complained to Judge Juan Merchan that despite his order prohibiting him from insulting personnel related to the trial, the magnate continues to turn a deaf ear. David Pecker72 years old, former president of the publishing company of the tabloid newspaper National Enquirer and the first witness for the Prosecutor’s Office to take the stand, described his relationship with the Republican magnate and the practice called “catch and kill”, which consists of buying potentially harmful news so that it does not see the light.
An example of this modality is that of the Playboy model Karen McDougal, to whom the National Enquirer paid 150 thousand dollars for a story that she was trying to sell during the 2016 campaign about a sexual relationship that she had with the magnate and that It was never published. “We bought the story so that no other media would publish it”Pecker acknowledged to the Prosecutor’s Office, and explained: “We did not want it to harm Trump or damage his campaign.”
The Prosecutor’s Office alleges that this agreement was part of a broader plan by the then Republican candidate in the 2016 elections, who surprisingly won against Democrat Hillary Clinton. “Stories about Mr. Trump” as well as “negative stories about his opponents” “increased sales” of the newspaper and benefited the New York real estate magnate’s campaign, Pecker acknowledged on the witness stand Tuesday.
In a “friend agreement” with Trump’s then-lawyer, Michael Cohen (now a sworn enemy who will be one of the prosecution’s star witnesses in the trial against Trump), Pecker said he thought he would be reimbursed for the money he paid to McDougal’s story will not be published. “Don’t worry, I’m your friend. The boss will take care of it,” Cohen said he told him.
Trump, who amassed his fortune in the New York real estate sector, relied heavily on the tabloid press to cement his celebrity, in a city where he was little appreciated. In addition to this case in New York, Trump faces charges over the 2020 election in Georgia and was charged in Florida for alleged mishandling of confidential information after leaving the White House.
