The three judges on the appeals court panel responsible for examining the immunity of the former US president did not hide their skepticism about the arguments in his favor.
The three judges of the Washington Court of Appeal, hearing Donald Trump’s request for criminal immunity as ex-president, revealed their skepticism on Tuesday January 9 during the debates in the presence of the person concerned, accused for attempting to illegally overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The big favorite in the Republican primaries for the November presidential election, which begins on January 15 in the state of Iowa, is seeking through his multiple appeals to postpone his various criminal trials as late as possible, and in any case after voting.
Donald Trump, who announced on Monday his intention to appear before the court of appeal even though he was not obliged to do so, actually followed, without speaking himself, the debates which lasted a little more than hour, ending around 10:45 a.m. (3:45 p.m. GMT).
Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will preside over the proceedings at her federal trial for her alleged unlawful attempts to reverse the result of the 2020 election, rejected her request for immunity on December 1, considering that no text protected a former president against criminal prosecution.
“Allowing a president to be prosecuted for his official actions would open a can of worms from which this country may never recover“, Donald Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, said on Tuesday. He raised the possibility of indicting former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, respectively for false information on the weapons available to Iraq in 2003, and for the elimination of jihadists by drone strikes.
“Paradoxical”
Donald Trump’s lawyers say he enjoys a “absolute immunity» for his actions while in the White House. They cite Supreme Court case law from the 1980s concerning civil suits against former President Richard Nixon.
They also argue that he cannot be tried in this case because of his acquittal during the parliamentary impeachment proceedings against him for the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, during which hundreds of his supporters attempted to prevent the certification of the victory of his Democratic opponent Joe Biden.
To a question from one of the judges, Florence Pan, on whether sending special forces to assassinate a political opponent or selling presidential pardons fell under these official acts, John Sauer responded in the affirmative.
“It would be paradoxical to say that its constitutional duty to ensure faithful respect for the laws authorizes it to violate criminal law“, retorted the President of the Court, Karen Lecraft Henderson.
“There have never before been allegations that a president, with private individuals and using the levers of power, attempted to fundamentally subvert the democratic republic and the electoral system», pleaded for his part James Pearce, member of the team of special prosecutor Jack Smith, who is investigating the case.
Supreme Court in reserve
In her decision, Judge Chutkan concluded that the Nixon precedent did not apply to criminal proceedings against a former president, and that impeachment proceedings did not constitute a criminal trial.
But the appeal from his lawyers suspended the procedure, which could derail the schedule of this trial which is scheduled to begin on March 4, worried Jack Smith.
Donald Trump, who pleaded not guilty in this case on August 3, 2023 in Washington, blames his legal troubles on the administration of President Joe Biden, whom he is likely to find on his way in 2024 for a revenge of 2020. December, the Supreme Court rejected Jack Smith’s request to rule urgently on this question, thus short-circuiting the traditional appeal process and the delays it entails.
But whatever the decision of the Court of Appeal, in all likelihood the parties against whom it finds wrong will appeal to the highest court in the country. The nine judges of the Supreme Court, six appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democratic presidents, will then have to choose whether to venture into the political arena, or on the contrary to prudently abstain from it.
Donald Trump is also being prosecuted by the courts of the state of Georgia (southeast) for related acts of electoral interference, and will also have to answer in federal court for his alleged negligent management of confidential documents after his departure from the White House.
” data-script=”https://static.lefigaro.fr/widget-video/short-ttl/video/index.js” >