Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

News

Justice Roberts Skewers Lower Court, Biden DOJ Over ‘Tautological’ Immunity Argument

Chief Justice John Roberts pressed an attorney representing the Department of Justice Thursday over an argument about presidential immunity during a case centered around former President Donald Trump.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an appeal of a Feb. 6 ruling from a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that rejected Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in the case stemming from an indictment special counsel Jack Smith secured against him over the former president’s effort to contest the results of the 2020 election. Roberts took aim at the lower court’s opinion while questioning attorney Michael Dreeben, asking if the lower court and DOJ were arguing that Trump lacked immunity by virtue of the fact he had been indicted.

LISTEN:

“They said that there is no reason to worry because the prosecutor will act in good faith and there is no reason to worry because a grand jury will have returned the indictment,” Roberts said. “Now, you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment and reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases, I‘m not suggesting here, so if it’s tautological, if those are the only protections the court gave that is no longer your position, you are not defending that position, why shouldn‘t we send it back to the court of appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that’s not the law?”

“Well, I am defending the court of appeals’ judgment and I do think there are layered safeguards the court can take into account that will ameliorate concerns about unduly chilling presidential conduct,” Dreeben responded. “That concerns us. We are not endorsing a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecutions in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence. A politically driven prosecution would violate the Constitution… It’s is not something within the arsenal of prosecutors to do.”

Trump’s attorneys accused special counsel Jack Smith of having “a political motive” to try the case before the 2024 presidential election in a reply brief filed Feb. 15. The Supreme Court previously denied Smith’s request to provide expedited review of an appeal of a December ruling by United States District Judge Tanya Chutkan of the District of Columbia that rejected a motion by Trump’s attorneys to dismiss the charge on grounds of presidential immunity.

The three-judge appeals court panel unanimously rejected Trump’s claim in a Feb. 6 ruling. “Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct,” the ruling said.

“Prosecutors take an oath, the attorney general takes an oath. I don‘t want to overstate your honor‘s concern with potentially relying solely on good faith, but that is an ingredient and then the courts stand ready to adjudicate motions based on selective prosecution, political animus,” Dreeben told. “This court relied on those very protections in a case just two years ago.”

READ 11 COMMENTS
  • Jane Mann says:

    I’m voting for Trump no matter what. Almost every president in my lifetime has committed the very crimes Trump is being prosecuted for, and no charges were brought against them. These trials are absolutely election interference!

    • Breadwoman says:

      Have to take issue with you there. Trump committed NO CRIMES. These are ALL made-up, manufactured, fabricated non-crimes that have NEVER SEEN a Courtroom BEFORE. But you’re RIGHT in that Trump did not do anything that any other President or Presidential Candidate Winner has not done before. And he DID WIN. You can’t get MORE ‘Votes’ than there are ‘Registered Voters’, and call it ‘good’. There was a GIANT DUMP of ‘more Votes’ after 2 am (that were mostly all for Biden, if not all) that put Biden ‘over the top’ (when all cameras were off) when the cameras came back ON LATER (causing there to BE more Votes than there were Registered Voters!) It’s just a FACT that Dems won’t let us talk about… (And by the way Clinton is STILL contesting her loss in 2016!!! but she nor Gore before her got ANY flack from ANYONE! (because they’re Dems.)

  • TOP STORIES

    News

    Republican Missouri State Rep. Ben Baker’s daughter and son-in-law died after violent gangs attacked them while they were serving as missionaries in Haiti, Baker...

    News

    Jaw-dropping video captured a confrontation between US Border Patrol agents and illegal immigrants who tried to force their way into the US on the...

    News

    Former President Donald Trump drew a massive crowd at Thursday evening’s planned rally in the South Bronx — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) stomping grounds...

    News

    A Fox News camera operator was jostled by an umbrella-toting aide to Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan Thursday on Capitol Hill. The interaction...

    >