Appeals court skeptical of Trump’s immunity claims
- Trump's lawyers claimed presidential immunity in an appeals court Tuesday
- The three-judge panel appears poised to reject the arguments defense made
- Judge: "Paradoxical" to allow Trump to violate criminal law
ovp test
Male shot by female at Shreveport apartment
Class to create biodiverse backyard
Rules for outbursts at Caddo School Board Meeting
(NewsNation) — A three-judge panel heard former President Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in an appeals court Tuesday, appearing broadly skeptical of the argument.
Trump’s attorneys argued the upcoming trial for charges related to the 2020 presidential election and Trump’s alleged role in the Jan. 6 riots should not happen because those things occurred while he was in office.
Trump’s legal team has claimed presidential immunity before, but a judge rejected it, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take it up.
His lawyers also argued former presidents, such as Trump, can only face prosecution if they are first impeached and then convicted by the Senate. Though Trump was impeached during his presidency, he was never convicted by the Senate.
The panel of judges appeared poised to reject those arguments, saying Congress may not always choose to impeach a president for unlawful conduct.
Trump attended the hearing in person before the District of Colombia Circuit Court of Appeals, opting to leave the campaign trail less than a week before the Iowa caucuses.
At the courthouse, Trump spent the hour-plus argument largely staring ahead, making brief comments to his lawyers, according to NewsNation affiliate “The Hill.”
In response to his position on Trump’s near-blanket immunity, the judges peppered John Sauer, Trump’s attorney, with several hypotheticals about what a president could do without facing prosecution.
Judge Michelle Childs noted that a president could resign rather than face impeachment, allowing them to dodge future prosecution, under the Trump attorneys’ proposed framework.
Sauer argued the threat of prosecution would “dampen the ability of the president,” saying a president would have to “look over their shoulder” and wonder whether they will go to jail for making controversial decisions.
Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said Trump’s argument gives executives too much leeway.
“I think it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws,” she said.
