Supreme Court Judges Show Sympathy for Trump’s Immunity

Trump and his lawyers are insisting on justice without reservation, seeking to have criminal trials that were put on hold due to Trump’s interference in the 2020 election results declared null and void. The ex-president, clearly annoyed, had to appear in New York, resembling a former tabloid owner, David Pecker, who had previously helped cover up sex affair stories for him. Trump’s lawyer argued in court that the ex-president could only be prosecuted if he had first been removed from office by Congress, a position that many legal scholars found absurd.

The defense attorney also contended that prosecuting Trump would set a dangerous precedent, limiting the freedom of action for future presidents. Conservative justices on the Supreme Court expressed sympathy for the idea that presidents deserve some level of immunity, while others suggested further legal investigations were necessary to determine if Trump’s alleged crimes occurred during his presidency or as a private citizen. The indictment against the chief investigator, Jack Smith, faces uncertainty with two conservative judges questioning the validity of the charges.

The three liberal judges on the Supreme Court argued that the president should not have absolute immunity, as it could allow criminal activities to take place in the Oval Office. The top lawyer representing the Ministry of Justice refuted Trump’s claim of immunity, stating that it would give a future president a blank check for any crime. The Supreme Court has until the end of June to make its decision on whether Trump can be prosecuted, with the outcome likely impacting the upcoming presidential election.