Federal prosecutors argued in court on Thursday that former President Donald Trump is not above the law and should not be immune from criminal prosecution for his alleged role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s lawyers had previously asked the judge to dismiss the case, claiming that he was immune from prosecution for actions taken while in office. However, the prosecution team countered that there is no legal basis or precedent to support this immunity claim. They argued that Trump, like any other American citizen, is subject to federal criminal laws.
The case against Trump involves allegations that he plotted to overturn the election results, culminating in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Trump has been charged with four counts in federal court, including incitement to insurrection. The trial is currently scheduled for March 4, 2024.
While the Supreme Court has previously held that sitting presidents are immune from civil liability for actions related to their official duties, it has never addressed the question of whether this immunity extends to criminal prosecution. Trump’s defense lawyers have argued that he should be exempt from prosecution because his actions were within the scope of his presidential duties. However, the prosecution team rejected this argument, stating that the steps Trump took to stay in power, such as spreading false claims of voter fraud, were far outside the bounds of his official responsibilities.
The prosecution team also argued that Trump’s claim of immunity contradicts the Constitution, which allows for the criminal prosecution of a president for acts committed during their time in office. They emphasized that the impeachment clause in the Constitution does not grant sweeping immunity, but rather recognizes the possibility of criminal prosecution leading to a president’s removal from office.
In addition to the election subversion case, Trump is facing three other criminal prosecutions. These include charges of hoarding classified documents in Florida, conspiring to overturn his election loss in Georgia, and falsifying business records in New York. While the outcome of the election subversion case will be determined by the trial judge, any decision is likely to be appealed to higher courts, including the Supreme Court.
The question of whether a former president can be prosecuted for criminal conduct while in office is a legally untested issue. The resolution of this case could have far-reaching implications for the accountability of presidents and the limits of presidential immunity in the future.
