Trump and his legal team are adamant in their pursuit of justice, arguing that the criminal trials put on hold due to Trump’s interference in the 2020 election results should be declared null and void. The former president, clearly irritated, had to appear in court 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. If Trump is found guilty of his alleged crimes, it could set a precedent for future presidents and impact how they handle their duties and responsibilities while in office.
