WASHINGTON (AP) — Accepting former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity would inspire long-term presidents to use military force to stay in power indefinitely, an organization of former Republican anti-Trump officials warned in a brief filed Tuesday with the U. S. Supreme Court.
Rejecting Trump’s request for immunity, which he says protects him from prosecution for mendacity and encouraging his supporters who turned violent on Jan. 6, 2021, and attacked the U. S. Capitol, is critical to preserving American democracy, officials wrote in a statement. a friend of the court.
The 26 former lawyers, lawmakers, and others at the U. S. Department of Justice have been arrested for their crimes. Some U. S. citizens who wrote the report were elected Republicans or served in Republican administrations. These include former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, former U. S. Sen. John Danforth of Missouri, and former U. S. Rep. John Danforth of Missouri. U. S. Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma.
Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, on Monday asked the court to further delay his trial in federal court in the District of Columbia while judges process his request for presidential immunity. Trump’s lawyers have asked the justices to take a broad view of the presidency. immunity, which they say is critical to protecting the power of the office.
In their report Tuesday, Republicans said the implications of the former president’s argument presented “terrifying possibilities. “
“Under former President Trump’s vision of absolute immunity, presidents in their first long-term terms would be emboldened to violate federal criminal law by employing the military and armed federal agents to remain in power,” they wrote.
“No court creates presidential immunity from federal prosecution of criminals, even for official acts, that is so broad as to jeopardize the nonviolent movement of executive force required by our Constitution. “
While Trump argues that such a “sinister hypothesis” that a president would use the military or armed federal agents would not save him from enjoying immunity, former Republican officials say the specific allegations against the former president weigh heavily against accepting their argument.
On the one hand, they write, the federal indictment against Trump alleges that he used the Justice Department as a tool in his election plan.
Specifically, the AMICI note, the indictment alleges that a letter signed through Trump’s acting attorney general urged states to update Biden’s valid electorate with the electorate that supports Trump.
“Under Mr. Trump’s vast rationale for federal criminal immunity, a future President would be emboldened to direct the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security, as well as the Attorney General, to deploy the military and armed federal agents to support efforts to overturn that President’s re-election loss,” they wrote.
The framers of the Constitution meant to limit executive power and highly valued a peaceful transfer of power, the officials wrote.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in an article in the Federalist Papers that the Constitution was intended to save a “victorious demapassgue” from remaining in power, they write. Accepting Trump’s broad interpretation of presidential immunity would threaten that cover and inspire long-term presidents to move to excessive policies. Whatever they could to stay in power, they said.
“What kind of Constitution would immunize and therefore inspire presidents who lose their first term to violate corrupt federal law – through official or unofficial acts – to usurp a second term?” they wrote. It’s not our Constitution. “
In addition to the former Republican officials, several constitutional law experts filed an amicus brief Tuesday arguing that Trump is immune from federal prosecution.
The six law professors argued that Trump’s dual claims that he is immune because his moves were made while he was still president, and that he will not be prosecuted for criminal offenses after his acquittal in his Senate impeachment trial, constitute a “interpretation erroneous of the constitutional text and of history as such”. as well as the precedent of this Court.
The argument for absolute immunity has “no basis” in the Constitution, the experts wrote.
“Trying to distinguish the president from a British king, the framers and rat-makers of the Constitution have indicated that a president ‘may be impeached and punished’ for ‘committing crimes contrary to the state,'” the experts wrote, raising debates in several states. conventions on the Federal Constitution.
Like former Republican officials, law and politics professors have asked the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s request to delay the trial court’s proceedings.
Regarding Trump’s argument about the impeachment clause, constitutional law experts wrote: “The authors considered the impeachment procedure to be entirely independent of the prosecution of offenders and thus devised that a verdict against one official in one proceeding deserves to have no effect on the other. “
The dissertation authors are Frank O. Bowman III of the University of Missouri School of Law; Michael J. Gerhardt, University of North Carolina School of Law; Brian C. Kalt of Michigan State University College of Law; Peter M. Shane of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and New York University School of Law; Laurence H. Tribe, Professor Emeritus, Harvard University; and Keith E. Whittington, professor of politics at Princeton University and soon-to-be professor of law at Yale Law School.
Also on Tuesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. set Feb. 20 as the deadline for special suggestion Jack Smith, who is prosecuting the case for the Justice Department, to respond to Trump’s request to delay the trial.
The one-week deadline suggests the justices are seeking a speedy resolution to the issue.
Trump’s lawyers filed the petition with the Supreme Court late Monday, following a ruling last week by a three-judge panel of the Washington Circuit Court of Appeals, adding judges appointed by members of either party, upholding a lower court’s ruling to deny Trump’s immunity request. . .
Trump’s request to remain said the former president would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, as well as request a new hearing in the entire Washington Circuit. Trump has asked that pretrial activities in federal district court not continue while appeals are pending.
The immunity issue, which does address the merits of the case brought by Smith’s team against Trump, has dragged on for months and pushed back the scheduled March 4 trial date.
Trump filed a pretrial motion with U. S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in October to dismiss the four-count indictment based on his theory of presidential immunity.
Chutkan denied the request, and Trump appealed his to the Washington Circuit.
The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case about whether Colorado can simply exclude him from the No. 1 presidency because a provision of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment prohibits insurgents from running for public office. The justices greeted Colorado’s argument with skepticism. A resolution is expected shortly.
by Jacob Fischler, Florida Phoenix February 13, 2024
WASHINGTON (AP) — Accepting former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity would inspire long-term presidents to use military force to stay in power indefinitely, an organization of former Republican anti-Trump officials warned in a brief filed Tuesday with the U. S. Supreme Court.
Rejecting Trump’s request for immunity, which he says protects him from prosecution for mendacity and encouraging his supporters who turned violent on Jan. 6, 2021, and attacked the U. S. Capitol, is critical to preserving American democracy, officials wrote in a statement. a friend of the court.
All 26 former U. S. Justice Department lawyers, lawmakers and others who wrote the report were either elected Republicans or served in Republican administrations. These include former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, former US Senator John Danforth of Missouri and former US Representative Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma.
Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, on Monday asked the court to further delay his trial in federal court in the District of Columbia while judges process his request for presidential immunity. Trump’s lawyers have asked the justices to take a broad view of the presidency. immunity, which they say is critical to protecting the power of the office.
In their briefing Tuesday, Republicans said the implications of the former president’s argument presented “scary possibilities. “
“Under former President Trump’s vision of absolute immunity, presidents in their first long-term terms would be emboldened to violate federal criminal law by employing the military and armed federal agents to remain in power,” they wrote.
“No court creates presidential immunity from federal prosecution of criminals, even for official acts, that is so broad as to jeopardize the nonviolent movement of executive force required by our Constitution. “
While Trump argues that such a “sinister hypothesis” that a president would use the military or armed federal agents would not save him from enjoying immunity, former Republican officials say the specific allegations against the former president weigh heavily against accepting their argument.
On the one hand, they write, the federal indictment against Trump alleges that he used the Justice Department as a tool in his election plan.
Specifically, the AMICI note, the indictment alleges that a letter signed through Trump’s acting attorney general urged states to update Biden’s valid electorate with the electorate that supports Trump.
Given Trump’s broad justification for federal immunity from criminals, a longtime president would be emboldened to direct the secretaries of defense and homeland security, as well as the attorney general, to deploy the military and armed federal agents in efforts to oppose the president’s decision. . loss of re-election,” they wrote.
The drafters of the letter intended to restrict executive force and placed great importance on a nonviolent forceful movement, the officials wrote.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in a Federalist Papers entry that the Constitution meant to prevent a “victorious demagogue” from staying in power, they wrote. Accepting Trump’s broad interpretation of presidential immunity would threaten that protection and encourage future presidents to go to extreme lengths to stay in power, they said.
“What kind of Constitution would immunize and therefore inspire presidents wasted in their first term to violate corrupt federal legislation—through official or unofficial acts—to usurp a second term?” They wrote: “It is not our Constitution. “
In addition to the former Republican officials, several constitutional law experts filed an amicus brief Tuesday arguing that Trump is not immune from federal prosecution.
The six law professors argued that Trump’s double claims that he is immune because his moves were taken while he was still president, and that he will not be prosecuted for criminals after his acquittal in his Senate impeachment trial, constitute a “misinterpretation of the constitutional text and of history as such. “as well as the precedent of this Court.
The absolute immunity argument “finds no basis” in the Constitution, the experts wrote.
“Trying to distinguish the president from a British king, the framers and rat-makers of the Constitution have indicated that a president ‘may be impeached and punished’ for ‘committing crimes contrary to the state,'” the experts wrote, raising debates in several states. conventions on the Federal Constitution.
Like former Republican officials, law and politics professors have asked the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s request to delay the trial court’s proceedings.
As for Trump’s argument about the impeachment clause, constitutional law experts wrote, “The authors considered the impeachment proceeding to be entirely independent of the prosecution of offenders and thus devised that a verdict against one official in one proceeding deserves to have no effect on the other. “
The authors of the thesis are Frank O. Bowman III of the University of Missouri School of Law; Michael J. Gerhardt, University of North Carolina School of Law; Brian C. Kalt of Michigan State University School of Law; Peter M. Shane of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and New York University School of Law; Laurence H. Tribe, Professor Emeritus at Harvard University; and Keith E. Whittington, a professor of politics at Princeton University and an upcoming law professor at Yale Law School.
Also on Tuesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. set Feb. 20 as the deadline for special suggestion Jack Smith, who is prosecuting the case for the Justice Department, to respond to Trump’s request to delay the trial.
The one-week deadline suggests the justices are seeking a speedy resolution to the issue.
Trump’s lawyers filed the petition with the Supreme Court late Monday, following a ruling last week by a three-judge panel of the Washington Circuit Court of Appeals, adding judges appointed by members of either party, upholding a lower court’s ruling to deny Trump’s immunity request. . .
Trump’s request to remain said the former president would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, as well as request a new hearing in the entire Washington Circuit. Trump has asked that pretrial activities in federal district court not continue while appeals are pending.
The question of immunity, which does address the merits of the case that Smith’s team has presented against Trump, has been dragging on for months and has delayed the March 4 trial date.
Trump made a pretrial motion to U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in October seeking to throw out the four-count indictment based on his presidential immunity theory.
Chutkan denied the request, and Trump appealed his to the Washington Circuit.
The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case about whether Colorado can simply exclude him from the No. 1 presidency because a provision of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment prohibits insurgents from running for public office. The justices greeted Colorado’s argument with skepticism. A resolution is expected shortly.
Florida Phoenix belongs to States Newsroom, a network of grant-backed news bureaus and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains its editorial independence. Please contact Editor Diane Rado if you have any questions: info@floridaphoenix. com. Follow Florida Phoenix on Facebook and Twitter.
Jacob covers federal politics as a senior reporter for States Newsroom. Based in Oregon, it focuses on Western issues. Its policy spaces include climate, energy development, public lands, and infrastructure.
Ashley Murray covers the nation’s capital as a senior reporter for States Newsroom. Her coverage areas include domestic policy and appropriations.
TOOLKIT FOR DEMOCRACY
The Phoenix is a not-for-profit, ad-free news site available to readers. We cover government and state politics with a team of five journalists at the Florida Press Center in downtown Tallahassee.
Our stories can be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4. 0 license. We ask that you edit them just for pleasure or for short, provide attribution and link to our website.