Special counsel lawyer says Supreme Court has ‘never recognised’ type of immunity Trump is seeking
Back at the Supreme Court in Washington, the lawyer representing special counsel Jack Smith, who has brought the indictment against Trump, has told the court that it has never in the past recognized the kind of immunity that Trump is seeking.
However, Chief Justice John Roberts said he was concerned that, should presidents not be immune, the country would be relying on the “good faith” of the prosecutors to prevent abusive prosecutions against presidents.
He told the special counsel’s lawyer, Michael Dreeben: “Now you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment.
“And reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases – I’m not suggesting here [Smith’s indictment of Trump].”
“I do think there are layered safeguards that the court can take into account that will ameliorate concerns about unduly chilling presidential conduct,” Mr Dreeben responded.
“That concerns us. We are not endorsing a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecution in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence.
“A politically driven prosecution would violate the Constitution,” he said.
Justice Clarence Thomas asked Mr Dreeben why no president had been prosecuted in the past, citing a controversial Cold War-era US operation in Cuba authorized by John F Kennedy which he described as seeming “ripe for prosecution”.
“The reason why there have not been prior criminal prosecutions is that there were no crimes,” Mr Dreeben responded.
He added that his team was not endorsing a system in which presidents would be exposed to prosecution for mistakes or bad judgments.
Tags: Donald Trump court latest Trumpappointed judge issue expresidents argument key Supreme Court hearing News
