President could be immune even for assassinating rival: lawyers
Presidents could be immune from prosecution even if they stage a coup or assassinate a political rival, one of Donald Trump’s lawyers argued at the US Supreme Court.
On Thursday (US time), the former president’s legal team claimed Trump is immune from charges of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election because this fell within the scope of his official acts.
The highest court in the United States, where conservative judges outnumber their liberal counterparts six to three, appeared to split along party lines as justices probed what actions by a president could be shielded from prosecution.
Noting that presidential orders to the military were considered official acts, Sonia Sotomayor, a Barack Obama-appointed judge, asked if a president was entitled to immunity if they ordered the assassination of a corrupt political rival.
“That could well be an official act,” said D John Sauer, one of Trump’s lawyers.
When pressed on whether a president could order a military coup to remain in power, Sauer said this would depend on the circumstances.
Ketanji Brown Jackson, a judge appointed by US President Joe Biden, suggested that total presidential immunity could turn the Oval Office into “the seat of criminal activity in this country”.
Conservative justice Samuel Alito agreed that a scenario in which a president could legally order a Navy Seal team to assassinate a rival was “implausible”. But the Republican judge expressed concern about presidents having to worry about being indicted.
The US government had claimed the role of a grand jury in securing an indictment was an important check. However, Justice Alito claimed prosecutors could convince a grand jury to indict a “ham sandwich”.
During the session, the justices also discussed the idea of sending the immunity question back to lower courts for further fact-finding or potential narrowing of special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment.
Such a move would be a win for Trump, who is trying to stall the case being tried before the US presidential election.
Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Trump said: “I think it was made clear, I hope it was made clear, that the president has to have immunity or you don’t have a president or at most you could say it would be a ceremonial president.”
Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA School of Law, said although the Supreme Court’s final decision would likely lean towards the justice department, “Trump is likely to get what he wants – a further delay of this election subversion case”.
The Supreme Court hearing came as Trump sat in a Lower Manhattan courtroom for the third day of his New York hush money trial, which may be the only criminal trial the former US president faces before voters go to the polls.
Trump had asked to skip his New York criminal proceedings so he could sit in on the high court’s special session, but his request was denied by Judge Juan Merchan.
The New York jury heard testimony from former tabloid boss David Pecker.
Pecker, who is not facing any charges, is accused of conspiring with Trump and his former “fixer” Michael Cohen to “corrupt” the 2016 election by burying negative stories in the lead-up to the election.
The 34 felony charges being brought against Trump by the Manhattan district attorney centre on a US$130,000 (NZ$220,000) payment Cohen made to Daniels to “silence” her. Prosecutors allege that Trump illegally falsified business records by disguising his reimbursement payments to Cohen as legal fees.
Wearing a black suit, pink shirt and scarlet tie, Pecker, 72, described how he was told Ms Daniels wanted to sell her story about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump when he was having dinner with his wife on October 8, 2016.
Pecker said Daniels’ story could have been “very damaging” and he advised Cohen to “take it off the market”.
Later Emil Bove, one of Trump’s lawyer’s, started the defence’s cross-examination. He grilled Pecker about “catch and kill” arrangements he had with other celebrities. – Telegraph Group