WASHINGTON — Tackling an unprecedented and politically fraught issue, the Supreme Court on Thursday morning is considering former President Donald Trump’s assertion of total immunity from criminal charges over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election results.
The court has taken on the novel legal question of whether a former president can be prosecuted for what Trump’s attorneys say were “official acts” taken in office, though much of the focus remains on whether the justices will rule quickly so a trial could take place before the November election.
With most legal experts questioning Trump’s broad argument that the entire election interference indictment should be dismissed based on immunity, the court’s eventual ruling on the extent to which official acts are protected and how quickly it rules will be of equal importance.
The case puts considerable scrutiny on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three justices Trump appointed. The court already handed Trump an election-year boost when it ruled last month that Colorado could not kick him off the ballot.
The justices have also come under criticism for their delay in taking up Trump’s appeal, which some view in itself as a victory for him.
The Supreme Court announced Feb. 28 that it would hear the case, saying it would examine “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” The decision immediately put the prospect of a pre-election trial in jeopardy.
Trump on Thursday morning prefaced the hearing with a post on his social media site that echoed an argument in his court brief, which said denying a president immunity would open him up to “extortion” from political opponents to force him to meet their demands or risk prosecution.
“If a President doesn’t have IMMUNITY, he/she will be nothing more than a ‘Ceremonial’ President, rarely having the courage to do what has to be done for our Country,” Trump wrote.
A federal appeals court had ruled Feb. 6 that Trump was not immune from prosecution, writing that “former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” and that while executive privilege may have protected him during his presidency, it no longer protected him against prosecution.
“It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity,” the federal appeals court ruled.
Under the original schedule laid out by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, Trump’s trial had been set to begin March 4, and the jury might have even reached a verdict by this point. Instead, the first of the four criminal cases against Trump to go to trial was the prosecution brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in New York, where Trump was indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to a hush money payment in the lead-up to the 2016 election. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The federal indictment returned by a grand jury in Washington, D.C., in August consisted of four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The Supreme Court has already heard arguments in another Jan. 6 case that could affect two of the charges against Trump involving obstruction of an official proceeding.
Trump, according to the indictment, conspired to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the government function by which those results are collected, counted and certified.”
The indictment focuses on Trump’s involvement in a scheme to submit fake election…
This article was originally published by a www.nbcnews.com . Read the Original article here. .