Former President Trump was granted a hearing by the Supreme Court regarding his claim of presidential immunity from prosecution in the criminal case filed against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Trump’s lawyers will argue he cannot be prosecuted for alleged election interference and other charges related to January 6th.
The high court will hear oral arguments in April and render a decision by June, putting Trump’s trial on hold.
His filing warns that allowing criminal prosecution of a sitting president would usher in a destructive cycle of recrimination and subject presidents to political extortion.
“If the prosecution of a President is upheld, such prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in destructive cycles of recrimination,” Trump’s legal team argued.
“Criminal prosecution, with its greater stigma and more severe penalties, imposes a far greater ‘personal vulnerability’ on the President than any civil penalty,” the request added. “The threat of future criminal prosecution by a politically opposed Administration will overshadow every future President’s official acts — especially the most politically controversial decisions.”
The president’s “political opponents will seek to influence and control his or her decisions via effective extortion or blackmail with the threat, explicit or implicit, of indictment by a future, hostile Administration, for acts that do not warrant any such prosecution.”
The Supreme Court will also hear a related case, Fischer v. United States, which addresses the obstruction statute used against Trump.
Legal experts say a ruling limiting the scope of that statute could undermine the case against Trump.
They note if the Court sides with Trump on immunity, it would greatly complicate Smith’s ability to prosecute the former president.
“The case to keep your eye on is the obstruction case,” former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy said. “We miss it because Trump is not a party to that case. They are looking at the same statute that is key to Smith’s prosecution of Trump in Washington, and if they — as I expect they may, if they — if they say the Justice Department has not been correctly applying that statute, that’s going to have a catastrophic impact for Smith on his indictment.”
“The D.C. Circuit’s expansion of Section 1512(c)(2) beyond evidence impairment to protests at the seat of government thus conflicts with the interpretations of other courts of appeal limiting the scope of the same statute,” attorneys for Joseph Fischer wrote.
Read Also:
Bombshell Decision from Michelle Obama on 2024 Run
Former Border Chief Shreds Biden With 4 Simple Words
