The Supreme Court of the United States has reviewed whether or not former President Donald Trump will be granted immunity from prosecution and what it actually means if there is such a chance.
The answer will determine whether or not former President Donald Trump faces trial on charges of trying to sabotage the 2020 election.
Read more>
Turkey has accused the United States of a two-pronged policy against the United States for secretly giving long-range missiles to Ukraine
But whatever the decision, each judge indicated that it would shape America’s future democracy.
The case was heard in a special session a day after the scheduled arguments of the court. It was based primarily on Trump’s claim that he deserves immunity from any criminal charges while serving as president.
According to Trump, this immunity will protect him from the charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
His trial will be stayed pending the resolution of the impunity matter. The matter is expected to be settled in June.
The question posed by the judges is an indication of the division among them. As a result, a split decision is expected.
Their split may also lead to more complex decisions, which may delay the retrial process.
Would a full impunity mean that future presidents could use the military to kill their opponents?
Or if there is no impunity, the president will face trial or go to jail after the end of his term as a victim of political revenge?
Conservatives believe former US presidents should have some immunity.
Still, the justices were wary of Trump’s lawyer’s argument in the case, Dean John Saue, who said a former president is “almost immune” from the judicial process. Sauer was cross-examined by nine judges on the issue of this protection.
What would happen if the president asked the military to stage a coup, asked Elena Kagan, one of the three liberal justices.
Sauer seemed hesitant to answer. He said, ‘will depend on the situation’.
Justice Kagan replied, ‘That doesn’t sound very good, does it?
Later, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, known as a liberal, also expressed concern that former presidents may not obey the law if they are out of the entire criminal justice process.
Conservative justices also pressed Sauer on what is meant by an ‘official act or government act’ done as part of the president’s job and personal duties.
“My question is whether the broad scope of impunity that you’re talking about is necessary,” said one of the court’s most conservative justices, Samuel Alito.
But U.S. Rep. Michael Driben faced similar questions as the justices also pondered what would happen to an expiring president without some protections.
Justice Clarence Thomas wants to know what happens if a president orders a violent attack on foreign soil, and can he be prosecuted later.
Driben said there are several levels of protection from criminal liability for one’s work, including activities conducted on foreign soil.
Justice Alito also expressed concern about another possible outcome, that the president could be subject to partisan attacks, either by his successor or after he leaves office at the end of his term.
It could also destroy the presidency, said Justice Alito, who has a key role in the second phase of the hearing.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett was appointed by Trump. He seemed somewhat skeptical as to whether the President was entitled to full impunity.
Driben said there is “no completely question-free approach” to dealing with presidential misconduct. Justice Barrett said he also agreed.
Sources: BBC, CNN
