Trump asks high court to dismiss federal charges
WASHINGTON − Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers were busy Tuesday.
The presumptive GOP presidential nominee asked the Supreme Court to dismiss his indictment on federal charges he tried to steal the 2020 election.
And he filed another long shot lawsuit against the media, this time suing ABC News and host George Stephanopoulos for claims that he raped writer E. Jean Carroll.
Trump said Stephanopoulous defamed him earlier this month when the host said to Rep. Nancy Mace, “Judges and two separate juries have found (Trump) liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape.”
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next month in Trump’s appeal of a lower court’s decision that he’s not immune from prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith for, allegedly, falsely claiming election fraud and trying to overturn legitimate election results. Trump has pleaded not guilty to four federal charges in that case − three for conspiracy and one for obstruction.
If Trump returns to the White House, he could appoint an attorney general who would seek to dismiss any pending federal charges. He might also simply pardon himself, although that power is debated.
But Trump’s preferred outcome is for the high court to entirely dismiss the indictment.
A ‘mortal threat’
Trump’s lawyers argued in their Tuesday filing to the high court that criminal prosecution presents a “mortal threat” to the independence of the presidency.
“The President cannot function, and the Presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the President faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office,” Trump’s lawyers told the court. That would lead to “years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents.”
Former presidents have broad immunity from civil lawsuits for official actions taken while serving in the White House. Trump has attempted to claim sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution.
His lawyer, John Sauer, argued at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in January that former presidents are vulnerable to criminal charges only after the House has impeached and the Senate convicted – even for crimes as stark as killing a political rival.
Prosecutors countered that could lead to some presidents escaping the law.
But “even if some level of Presidential malfeasance, not present in this case at all, were to escape punishment, that risk is inherent in the Constitution’s design,” Sauer argued in Tuesday’s filing.
“The founders viewed protecting the independence of the Presidency as well worth the risk that some Presidents might evade punishment in marginal cases,” he wrote. “They were unwilling to burn the Presidency itself to the ground to get at every single alleged malefactor.”