(Washington) The US Supreme Court hears arguments on Thursday on the criminal immunity invoked by Donald Trump as ex-president, a case in which both the speed and substance of its decision could weigh heavily in the electoral campaign.
Because by deciding on February 28 to take up this question, the highest court in the country further postponed the holding of the federal trial of the former Republican president for attempting to illegally reverse the results of the 2020 presidential election won by Democrat Joe Biden.
Targeted by four separate criminal proceedings, Donald Trump is seeking through his multiple appeals to go to trial as late as possible, in any case after the November election.
His trial in New York for suspicious payments during the 2016 campaign, which finally began on April 15, could be the only one to reach an outcome before the vote.
Probably the most serious case, the federal case for the 2020 election prosecuted by special prosecutor Jack Smith, is on hold until the Supreme Court decides on this question of criminal immunity of a former president.
The defense claims that, without such immunity, a president could not “properly carry out his duties” and that none of Donald Trump’s predecessors have ever been criminally prosecuted.
“This indictment is a historic first because of the particular seriousness of the alleged behavior,” replies the special prosecutor in his written arguments. “The severity, scope and damage caused to democracy by the alleged crimes is unique in American history,” he insists.
“Narrow window”
The vast majority of legal experts predict a crushing defeat for Donald Trump, as at first instance and then on appeal.
“I find it hard to believe that even this very, very conservative, very pro-Trump Supreme Court would be inclined to rule in favor of the position that a president has total immunity no matter what he does,” says to AFP James Sample, professor of constitutional law at Hofstra University, near New York.
“I think the score will be: Jack Smith 1, Donald Trump 0,” he summarizes.
“For the purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump has become Citizen Trump, with the same protections as any other defendant. But any immunity under the executive power, which could have protected him when he was president in office, no longer protects him against these prosecutions,” the three appeal judges wrote in their unanimous decision.
But for the trial, initially scheduled for March and postponed indefinitely due to the referral to the Supreme Court, to be able to take place, it would still be necessary for the nine judges to rule shortly.
“There is one window left but it is narrow and it closes. They have to act quickly, in which case there is a chance that the trial could begin in the fall, at the end of August or the beginning of September,” former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason, professor of criminal law at the George Washington University.
“The Court must really take into account the fact that this is a unique case,” he believes. “We’ve never had a situation before where a defendant potentially has the ability to have their own indictment dismissed, if they win the election. And then there will never be a trial.”
“This is what makes it a very particular case which justifies a really rapid decision,” concludes Randall Eliason.
If he were elected again, Donald Trump could, once inaugurated in January 2025, order an end to federal proceedings against him.
reference: www.lapresse.ca