Staff Reports
In a recent ruling, a federal appeals court has declared that former President Donald Trump cannot use presidential immunity as protection against charges of allegedly trying to mess with the 2020 presidential election results. This decision did not sit well with Trump, who took to Truth Social to express his disapproval, claiming that the ruling goes against the desires of the country’s founders and undermines the power of the presidency.
Trump slams presidential immunity denial: 'Not what our founders wanted' https://t.co/rziujE2zPB https://t.co/rziujE2zPB
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) February 6, 2024
According to Trump, without presidential immunity, the presidency would lose its power and fall victim to the authority of the other branches of government. He argues that this is not what the founding fathers intended, and he made his thoughts known on the new social media platform he endorsed, Truth Social.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously sided against Trump, stating that the presidency should not grant its former occupants absolute immunity from the law for all time. This decision comes after Trump’s lawyers had previously argued during his second impeachment trial that he could face criminal charges even if he was not convicted in the political trial, contradicting their current stance.
Following this ruling, Trump’s presidential campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, issued a statement, warning that denying immunity to Trump could set a dangerous precedent where every future president leaving office could face immediate indictment by the opposing party. Cheung expressed concerns that without complete immunity, a president would not be able to effectively carry out their duties, emphasizing that such prosecution violates the Constitution and jeopardizes the foundation of the Republic.
Looking ahead, Trump’s legal team may seek an appeal at the Supreme Court or request a review by the full circuit court, potentially further delaying the trial, which was originally scheduled for March. The team has until Monday to file an appeal, posing the possibility of an extended legal battle over the immunity issue.
This ruling and Trump’s reaction to it add fuel to the ongoing debate surrounding presidential immunity and its implications for the powers and limitations of the presidency. As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for future presidents and the interpretation of presidential authority within the judicial system.
