The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia appeared inclined during a hearing Tuesday to reject former President Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution on criminal charges for conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Trump’s lawyers have argued that he is immune from criminal prosecution for actions he took while president, unless he was impeached and convicted. Trump was impeached by the House after the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, but was not convicted by the Senate.
Special counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting Trump in connection with the former president’s actions after the 2020 election, has argued that a former president does not have absolute immunity and that criminal charges can be filed once the president leaves office, especially if the actions do not relate to your official duties.
Trump was accused of conspiring to obstruct the official certification of Joe Biden’s election victory and attempting to defraud Americans of their legitimate votes. Trump is charged with four federal crimes and has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Trump is accused in the indictment of conspiring to recruit fake electors in battleground states won by Biden and of pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject the counting of electoral votes on January 6, 2021, acts that Smith says fall far outside beyond the reach of a presidential official. homework. Trump has maintained that as president, he was responsible for ensuring that an accurate election was held.
The three-member panel, which includes Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by President George HW Bush, and Judges J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, both appointed by Biden, noted that impeachment is typically reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors. . Three presidents have been impeached (Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Trump twice) but none have been convicted by the Senate.
Pan questioned Trump lawyer John Sauer about whether a president could be criminally charged after leaving office in connection with several hypothetical examples of what could be considered “official acts,” including the sale of a pardon.
“Could a president order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival?” —Pan asked.
Sauer responded that in such a situation, the president “would have to be impeached and convicted quickly.”
When Pan responded, “I asked him a yes or no question,” Sauer responded that his argument was no, that a president could not be criminally prosecuted unless he was first impeached.
Deputy Special Prosecutor James Pearce responded that the idea of a president ordering the assassination of a rival, resigning before being indicted and being immune from prosecution would create “an extraordinarily terrifying future.”
When Childs pressed Sauer on whether Trump’s alleged criminal conduct constituted a “private” or “official” act, he forcefully argued that Trump was conducting official business.
The panel also questioned Trump’s lawyers and the special counsel’s office about issues raised in amicus briefs filed by outside groups, asking whether the time was right to decide immunity issues and whether the special counsel was properly appointed.
The outcome of the hearing could have wide ramifications. Trump is the first former president to be charged with a crime, and there is no clear precedent on whether a former president can be prosecuted for his actions while he was in office.
Smith is counting on a quick decision to continue the trial before the November election. The trial, scheduled to begin on March 4, has been paused pending the outcome of the appeal. It is unclear when the panel will rule, although he has signaled that he intends to work quickly.
A decision unfavorable to Trump is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, although there is no guarantee that the court will accept the appeal. Last month, the Supreme Court rejected Smith’s attempt to skip the appeal and send the issue directly to the highest court.
Although he was not required to attend, Trump was present for oral arguments on Tuesday, a possible calculation by his campaign that his image in court would be beneficial to the former president amid the final days of campaigning before the Iowa caucuses. January 15. It is rare for a defendant to attend an oral argument at this level, and cameras are not allowed in court.
