At US Supreme Court, clashing views presented on presidential immunity

26/4/2024 13:16

        During arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity from prosecution, two starkly different views of the consequences were on display on Thursday.
        
        Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer, painted a dire picture of presidents facing "de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office" because of the threat of future prosecution without the immunity the former president is seeking.
        
        Michael Dreeben, arguing on behalf of Special Counsel Jack Smith, said the "absolute immunity" sought by Trump "would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder - and, here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power."
        
        The justices heard arguments in Trump's appeal after lower courts rejected his claim of presidential immunity in a criminal case brought against him by the special counsel on four charges related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.