Washington [USA], April 27: During the argument that lasted about 2 and a half hours at the above court, most of the judges seemed to have difficulty accepting Mr. Trump's argument that presidents enjoy "absolute immunity" for acts when still in office, according to Reuters. However, most of the six conservative justices on the US Supreme Court expressed concern about presidents' lack of some degree of immunity, especially for less serious acts.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas asked Michael Dreeben, the attorney representing special prosecutor Jack Smith, why there had not been any previous prosecutions of the former president. Mr Dreeben replied: "The reason why there have been no criminal prosecutions before is because there was no crime." Mr. Dreeben argued that granting "absolute immunity" would "immunize" former presidents from criminal liability for "bribery, treason, sedition, murder." And in Mr. Trump 's case , "for plotting to use fraud to overturn the election results and maintain power for himself."
Meanwhile, three liberal judges, including Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, strongly opposed the view of absolute presidential immunity, according to AFP. Justice Kagan asked whether a president who "sells nuclear secrets to a foreign enemy" would be immune from prosecution. "What if the president orders the military to carry out a coup?", Ms. Kagan continued to ask.
In response, lawyer John Sauer, representing Mr. Trump, told the court that such theories "sound very bad", but "if it was an official act, it would need to be impeached and convicted by Congress." " before a president can be criminally prosecuted. Mr. Sauer also said that a former president could be prosecuted for "private conduct."
Bring it back to the lower court?
Conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court appear to want to leave the consideration of immunity to lower courts for further analysis. They questioned which of Trump's actions cited by prosecutors were done in an official capacity, as opposed to in his personal capacity, and which of those actions were done in an official capacity. may be exempted. Such a ruling could further delay Mr. Trump's trial in the case of overturning the election results if lower courts have to carry out a rigorous investigation, according to Reuters.
Previously, the US Supreme Court's decision to postpone arguments on immunity until this month postponed Mr. Trump's trial in the case of overturning the 2020 election results, which was initially scheduled to take place. in March. The US Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on immunity at the end of June.
Legal experts say that a verdict is needed before June 1 for the trial of former President Trump to be held before the election on November 5, when Mr. Trump will rematch President Joe Biden. If elected,
Mr. Trump could order the US Department of Justice to immediately dismiss all federal charges he is still facing.
Source: Thanh Nien Newspaper