Trump’s Case for Total Immunity | The Daily

Intro

In the episode “Trump’s Case for Total Immunity” of “The Daily” podcast, the ongoing legal battle over whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution is explored. Trump and his lawyers argue for absolute immunity, while the Justice Department counters that a sitting president cannot claim immunity and subvert an election. The episode delves into the arguments presented by both sides and the potential implications of the court’s decision.

Main Takeaways

Trump’s Argument for Immunity

• Donald Trump argues for immunity from criminal prosecution as a former president.
• Trump claims absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while president.
• Trump’s lawyer argues that criminal prosecution of a president for official acts would distract them from making tough decisions.
• Trump’s lawyer warns that allowing criminal prosecutions would open a Pandora’s box of actions against former presidents.

Legal Arguments and Skepticism

• The trial judge ruled against Trump, stating “we have presidents not kings.”
• The Supreme Court has endorsed the idea of absolute immunity for presidents from civil lawsuits seeking money related to their official conduct.
• The court has not directly addressed criminal prosecutions against a president, which are seen as a much more deliberate and measured action.
• Judge Karen Henderson questions whether a president’s constitutional duty to execute laws allows him to violate criminal laws.
• The judges question whether a president should be immune from prosecution for any action taken in office, including selling pardons or military secrets.
• The judges seem skeptical of Trump’s argument, and all three have serious problems with it.

Government’s Counterarguments

• The Justice Department lawyer argues that a sitting president cannot claim immunity and subvert an election.
• The lawyer rejects the idea that allowing this prosecution would lead to a flood of prosecutions of other presidents.
• The government’s lawyer emphasizes the unprecedented nature of the criminal charges against Trump and the serious constraints of criminal proceedings.
• The government’s lawyer argues that acting in an official capacity does not confer immunity from committing grave criminal wrongdoing.

Implications and Potential Rulings

• Trump’s lawyer discussed hypothetical scenarios where a president could commit crimes, such as selling military secrets or ordering the assassination of a political rival.
• The court is likely to rule against Donald Trump, who may appeal to the full DC Circuit and then to the US Supreme Court to delay and burn up time.
• The Supreme Court may want to preserve a sense of balance by ruling against Trump in one case and in favor of him in another case.
• The timing of the trial is important, as it’s part of Trump’s strategy to delay the trial, which could impact the Iowa caucus and the election.

Summary

Trump’s Argument for Immunity

Donald Trump and his lawyers appeared in a federal appeals court to argue for immunity from criminal prosecution as a former president. Trump claims absolute immunity for official acts while president, arguing that criminal prosecution would distract presidents from making tough decisions. His legal team warns against allowing criminal prosecutions, as it could set a precedent for actions against other former presidents.

Legal Arguments and Skepticism

The trial judge ruled against Trump, emphasizing that presidents are not above the law. While the Supreme Court has endorsed absolute immunity for civil lawsuits, it has not directly addressed criminal prosecutions against a president. The judges in the appeals court question whether a president’s duty to execute laws allows them to violate criminal laws, and whether immunity should extend to actions such as selling pardons or military secrets. The judges express skepticism towards Trump’s argument.

Government’s Counterarguments

The Justice Department lawyer argues that a sitting president cannot claim immunity and subvert an election. They reject the idea that allowing this prosecution would lead to a flood of prosecutions of other presidents. The government’s lawyer emphasizes the unprecedented nature of the criminal charges against Trump and highlights the serious constraints of criminal proceedings. They argue that acting in an official capacity does not shield a president from committing grave criminal wrongdoing.

Implications and Potential Rulings

Trump’s lawyer presents hypothetical scenarios where a president could commit crimes, but asserts that the president is immune from criminal prosecution unless impeached and convicted by the Senate. The court is likely to rule against Trump, who may appeal to higher courts to delay the trial. The Supreme Court may aim to maintain a sense of balance by ruling against Trump in one case and in favor of him in another. The timing of the trial is crucial, as it aligns with Trump’s strategy to delay the trial and potentially impact the Iowa caucus and the election.

Conclusion

The legal battle over whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution raises significant questions about the limits of presidential power and accountability. While Trump argues for absolute immunity, the government counters that a sitting president cannot claim immunity and subvert an election. The court’s ruling and potential appeals may have far-reaching implications for future presidents and the balance between executive authority and the rule of law.