President Trump had no chance of succeeding in his bold claim of immunity from charges of election interference. No previous president has ever made such a claim when faced with the possibility of criminal prosecution—Richard M. Nixon did not accept a pardon from Gerald Ford. Bill Clinton did not settle with independent attorney Robert Ray by paying a fine and surrendering his law license. This was – and more importantly still is – a delaying tactic, an effort to postpone consideration of criminal charges against him until after the election.
In that sense, the most important thing that happened on Tuesday was not contained in the 57-page opinion itself, which aimed to resume pretrial proceedings as soon as possible, which had recently been put on hold pending an immunity appeal. It was included in the accompanying orders. The order gives President Trump until Monday to begin the process of seeking Supreme Court review if he wants to freeze the case. (And even if President Trump takes tentative steps to ask the appeals court to reconsider the decision, the unanimous opinion does not agree that the appeals court will reconsider this decision, which is unlikely.) (The order states that trial preparations will not be prevented until the case.)
Bottom line: Although the original March 4 trial date is no longer scheduled, time is moving forward again for President Trump. Depending on the Supreme Court’s decisions and how quickly they are decided, any trial will require a wait of at least two months, and possibly longer. The justices could deny Trump’s request for a new trial or deny immediate approval from the appeals court.
But Special Counsel Jack Smith last December asked the justices to take the case immediately beyond the appeals court, arguing that it was a “paradigm issue of enormous social importance, namely, that former U.S. “This includes the issue of ease of criminal prosecution.” acts committed during his presidency. ” Since both the prosecution and the defense acknowledge the importance of the Supreme Court’s review, there is a possibility that the judge will take this up. If so, it should take prompt action to argue and adjudicate the case as quickly as possible, not just this term.
The strength of the Court of Appeals’ decision reflects the conclusions of trial judge Tanya S. Chutkan and should facilitate that task. It was no surprise that Trump lost, but he lost in a landslide without any judicial hedging, consent or dissent. Judge Karen L. Henderson, a candidate for President George H.W. Bush, joined two other Biden appointees, Judges Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs, in ruling against him. and sent an implicit message of solidarity by issuing a curiam-by-curiam ruling. No author was identified in court.
On the merits, the committee considered whether the conduct at the center of Trump’s indictment was of an official nature in nature, or whether it was a concurrent act as a presidential candidate that could have sent the case back to Chutkan for further review. He did not go into details about whether this was due to his role. Instead, Trump lost once and for all – and rightly so.
As the appeals court considers his case, President Trump has lashed out on social media, saying that denying immunity from prosecution would have potentially disastrous implications for future presidents. Without such protections, Trump argues, a president in office will forever be looking over his shoulder, facing retaliation from victorious rivals and deploying prosecutors to go after his rivals. . “The President of the United States must have complete immunity. Without it, it is impossible for the President to properly carry out his duties,” Trump posted on Truth Social last month.
In that regard, this opinion provides a convincing counterargument. “Just as juries are swayed by the prospect of criminal liability after deliberations, and administrative aides are silent about the prospect of criminal liability after taking office, so too can a president be unduly influenced by the prospect of criminal liability after taking office. “It is inconceivable that anyone would be intimidated by the disclosure of communications in a criminal prosecution,” the panel said. “Furthermore, past presidents have understood that they are subject to impeachment and criminal liability, at least under certain circumstances, so the potential for chilling executive action is already real.”
Rather, the court held that “instead of impeding the president’s legitimate discretionary actions, the prospect of federal criminal liability may serve as a structural benefit to deter potential abuses of power and criminal conduct.” It pointed out. In fact, the newspaper said, “If the president, who is given a constitutional duty to “see to the faithful execution of the laws,” is the only official who violates these laws and faces no punishment, If there were, it would be a striking contradiction.”
Disclaimer. That’s what President Trump has been asking for years. He may still succeed, but Tuesday’s ruling is a blow to accountability and the rule of law, and, as the court stated, “the executive branch has long since put those in their former positions above the law.” This went against President Trump’s proposal.