Trump: ‘Most people agree that we’re entitled … to immunity’
In remarks to reporters in Washington DC after appeals court judges expressed skepticism at his claims of immunity , Donald Trump doubled down on his argument he should not face charges for trying to overturn the 2020 election.
“What a sad situation it is. I want to thank you, everybody, for the fairness. We’ve been covered very fairly. Most people agree that we’re entitled, as a president, to immunity,” Trump said.
Key events
Trump then shifted to recounting all the ways in which Joe Biden failed as president.
It was as good a summary as any of how the former president will campaign against the current one, assuming Trump, as expected, again wins the Republican nomination.
Trump kicked his diatribe off by remarking on Biden’s, “horrible job he’s done at the border, where our country is being destroyed”, eschewing his recent rhetoric that has been compared to things white supremacists say.
He next shared his thoughts on Biden’s military withdrawal from Afghanistan. “The lowest moment, I think, in the history of our country was Afghanistan, the way we withdrew, not that we withdrew, but the way we withdrew with shame, we surrendered,” Trump said. Left unmentioned was his own administration’s role in paving the way for the pullout, which has left lasting damage on Biden’s approval ratings.
Despite presiding over a botched response to the Covid-19 pandemic and the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, a key message Trump will bring to voters in the months to come is that the country and the world were less wracked by crisis and hardship during his presidency, and he used his remarks to press that point.
“You wouldn’t have inflation but much more importantly, you wouldn’t have had the Ukraine situation with Russia, you wouldn’t have had the attack on Israel. You’d have a much different economy right now, have a great economy and we would be respected all over the world, the way we were just three years ago,” Trump said.
Trump: ‘Most people agree that we’re entitled … to immunity’
In remarks to reporters in Washington DC after appeals court judges expressed skepticism at his claims of immunity , Donald Trump doubled down on his argument he should not face charges for trying to overturn the 2020 election.
“What a sad situation it is. I want to thank you, everybody, for the fairness. We’ve been covered very fairly. Most people agree that we’re entitled, as a president, to immunity,” Trump said.
With cameras barred from the federal courtroom, no photographs are available of the appeals court hearing this morning over Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 election.
But a sketch artist was there to produce this image of Trump, seated on the right, and special counsel Jack Smith, depicted as seated to his left, listening to the lawyers argue before the three-judge panel:
As the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell and Cameron Joseph report, the three judges who heard from Donald Trump’s lawyers about why he should be considered immune from charges related to overturning the election were skeptical of their arguments:
Donald Trump’s arguments that he can’t be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results because it involved actions he took while still president appeared unconvincing to a federal appeals court on Tuesday, which repeatedly questioned such an expansive view of executive power.
The three-judge panel at the US court of appeals for the DC circuit expressed skepticism with the principal contention of Trump’s lawyer that the former president enjoyed absolute immunity from prosecution, and could only be charged if he had been convicted in an impeachment trial.
Such an interpretation of executive power would mean presidents could hypothetically self-pardon, sell military secrets or order the US Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate political rivals and escape accountability simply by claiming they were official acts, suggested Florence Pan, the circuit judge.
Trump’s lawyer initially sought to dodge whether presidents could be criminally prosecuted in such scenarios, but eventually offered a “qualified yes” – though only if Trump had been impeached and convicted in the Senate first.
Karen Henderson, a George HW Bush circuit judge appointee, also seemed leery of Trump’s position. “I think it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,” she told Sauer during her questioning.
Trump attended the court hearing in Washington. The decision that the DC circuit reaches, and how long it takes to issue a ruling, could carry profound implications for the viability of the scheduled March trial date that has been frozen pending the outcome of Trump’s appeal.
One of the most striking arguments of the just-concluded appeals court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim of immunity in the 2020 election subversion case came right at the beginning.
Judge Florence Pan wanted to know if Trump’s attorney John Sauer thought a president would be immune from prosecution if he, in his official capacity, ordered the military to assassinate a political rival. While it was never mentioned, the argument harkens back to Trump’s claim from 2016 that his supporters love him so much he could shoot somebody on New York’s Fifth Avenue and not lose votes.
Sauer went on to argue that a president can only be prosecuted for official acts that Congress impeached and convicted them for. Trump was impeached by the House for the January 6 insurrection, but not convicted by the Senate. Here’s the back-and-forth:
CLIP: Exchange on immunity between DC Circuit Court Judge Florence Pan and D. John Sauer, attorney for former President Donald Trump.
Judge Pan: “Once you concede that presidents can be prosecuted under some circumstances your separation of powers argument falls away…” pic.twitter.com/QYT8KoILkh
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 9, 2024
Defense and prosecutors wrap up arguments in Trump immunity appeal
Arguments have just finished before the three-judge federal appeals court that will weigh whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for trying to block Joe Biden from taking office because the actions took place while he was president.
If the judges rule in favor of Trump, it could lead to the dropping of the criminal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Should they rule against the former president, his lawyers may appeal the issue to the supreme court.
Hugo Lowell
Judge Florence Pan asked the government if this all boils down to whether Trump is right on his interpretation of the constitution’s impeachment judgment clause, which is that he can only be prosecuted if impeached and convicted.
Prosecutor James Pearce said that is basically the situation, but that Trump’s interpretation is wrong both textually and practically.
If a president sells pardons or assassinates a political rival and is acquitted in an impeachment trial, under Trump’s interpretation, there would be no further accountability. That’s both incorrect and scary, Pearce said.
Hugo Lowell
Justice department lawyer James Pearce tells the court that it has the authority to assume it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal and decide the case on its merits.
Pearce’s arguments comes after some anti-Trump third parties had said the DC circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. If the judges had agreed, it would clear the way for Trump’s trial to continue.
Judge Florence Pan asked Pearce to elaborate.
Pearce says doing justice means “getting the law right”. Even if it was true that the court lacked jurisdiction, he argues the judges should decide the issue on its merits.
Hugo Lowell
The judges are now hearing arguments from special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutors.
Attorney James Pearce is arguing for the government.
Hugo Lowell
Judge Karen Henderson gets into what the appeals court’s options are going forward.
Trump attorney John Sauer says he thinks the judges should remand the case back to the lower district court, with instructions to go through the indictment and consider whether each alleged act is an official act, or private conduct.
Sauer’s position is that private conduct can be prosecuted, but officials acts cannot, and that all the acts in the indictment are official acts.
Hugo Lowell
Judge Karen Henderson moved on to what acts are official acts for a president, saying, “I think it’s paradoxical to say his constitutional duty to say that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate the law”.
Sauer replied that a president’s actions can never be examinable by the courts.