The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a question that will decide if the former president faces charges for efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a question that will decide if the former president faces charges for efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to review a fast-tracked petition asking if Donald Trump can use his status as a former president to claim immunity from criminal charges related to his effort to overturn the 2020 election.

The order came only hours after Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the justices to expedite consideration of Trump’s presidential immunity claim in his D.C. prosecution for election interference leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. The decision is not an agreement to hear Smith’s case, but rather an agreement to review his petition faster than normal.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    651·
    7 months ago

    The legit argument for immunity is that a president is completely immune for official actions, anything else done while he is president but not official presidential action can’t be charged while president but can be charged after his term.

    Assuming they aren’t charging anything that could be construed as an official presidential action, this should be 9-0 of course you can be charged.

    • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
      English
      24·
      7 months ago

      Anything illegal should be charge-worthy, official or not, just like any other office. Actively holding the title of president entities immunity only as a delay, because that role also serves as commander-in-chief for the US. Having that seat empty during a prosecution could be hugely disruptive to the executive branch and strategically unwise for geopolitics.

      But once the new president takes over, there’s no longer any reason to delay the judicial process with temporary immunity.

      At least, that’s how I learned it in 6th grade, midwest public school.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        71·
        7 months ago

        I’m actually pro prosecution / impeachment of presidents for that reason, we have a backup available so it doesn’t actually hurt us. But I have to disagree on official actions. Sending someone to war can’t be reckless endangerment, having someone drone striked can’t be murder, we can’t have the president sued for damages every time they sign a law that harms a business or industry.

        • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
          English
          5·
          7 months ago

          Signing laws isn’t illegal in the first place.

          And I want to say I might be completely okay with holding those in power responsible for endangerment / drone strikes / murder / war.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        10·
        7 months ago

        He was president but it wasn’t official action so he could be charged after he was done being president aka now.