U.S. Supreme Court justices on Thursday quizzed lawyers for Donald Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith about the former president’s claim of immunity from prosecution for trying to undo his 2020 election loss, posing questions about what happens if a president sells nuclear secrets, takes a bribe or orders a coup or assassination.

Trump appealed after lower courts rejected his request to be shielded from four election-related criminal charges on the grounds that he was serving as president when he took the actions that led to the indictment obtained by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Michael Dreeben, representing the special counsel, told the justices that the Supreme Court has never recognized the kind of immunity that Trump seeks for a public official.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts signaled concern about relying merely on the “good faith” of the prosecutors to prevent abusive prosecutions against presidents if the Supreme Court rejects presidential immunity.

“Now you know,” Roberts told Dreeben, “how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment. And reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases - I’m not suggesting here” in Smith’s indictment of Trump.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    There is nothing to fucking scrutinize!

    Can a president break the law?

    No. End of.

    This decision should have taken all of 30 seconds weeks ago and been unanimous.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Exactly. This should never have gone in front of the court at all. There’s just no question here. If the court rules in favor of Trump, Biden can legally assassinate him. I doubt he would, but I also doubt SCOTUS wants to grant Biden or any potential future Democrat that power.

        They’re doing this to delay, that’s all.

          • Icalasari@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            7 months ago

            Honestly might shoot up his popularity if he did that after a, “President is immune” verdict

            • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              I don’t like the idea of politicians swaying judges, but it would be nice if someone told the Supreme Court that Biden has a number of teams standing by to create vacancies there should it be determined that it is, in fact, not illegal. It doesn’t have to be true, mind you, but it’s definitely something they should be thinking about when they make their specious claims.

      • Snapz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Ironically these conservative justices were laughed at and never picked up as babies, which contributes to them becoming the spiteful, immoral bastards we see today.

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      “Hmm, we have this tradition of pardoning the former president for acts committed as part of his role as president. We did this because of our firm belief…that the president…couldn’t be charged for breaking the law?” Yep, sounds legit.