Legal experts tear apart Trump’s 'presidential immunity' claims: 'Abhorrent to American law'

09 January 2024

On Tuesday morning, January 9 in Washington, D.C., a panel of three federal appellate judges — Karen Henderson, Florence Pan and Michelle Childs — grilled one of Donald Trump's lawyers, D. John Sauer, about Trump's "presidential immunity" argument in special counsel Jack Smith's election interference case.

Trump is arguing that because he was still president in late 2020 and early 2021, he enjoys immunity from prosecution — and therefore, the case needs to be thrown out. But Judge Tanya Chutkan flat-out rejected that claim, ruling that U.S. presidents do not enjoy a "divine right of kings."

Trump's lawyers appealed Chutkan's ruling, and Sauer answered questions from Henderson, Pan and Childs during the January 9 hearing. The judges questioned DOJ assistant special counsel James Pearce as well.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

In a report by ABC News' Alexandra Hutzler, legal experts weigh in on Trump's "presidential immunity" claims.

David Schultz, a constitutional law expert at the University of Minnesota, told ABC News that there is "nothing in the text of the Constitution that speaks to immunity in one way or another."

But Schultz also said, "We have language from some Framers indicating that even if there might have been some immunity while a person was president of the United States, once they've left office, there's no immunity — and they could be charged with the crime."

Hutzler notes that legal experts Ty Cobb and Norman Eisen have been vehemently critical of Trump's "presidential immunity" claim, which Eisen slammed as "abhorrent to American law." And Cobb stressed that "no man is above the law" in the United States.

University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq told ABC News that Trump's presidential immunity arguments are "exceptionally weak."

Smith asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an expedited review of Trump's immunity claims, but the justices denied his request and wanted an appellate court to address the matter first.

Huq told ABC News, "There is almost never a stop clock running in the background, and that makes this case very different from any other criminal case."

Read ABC News' full report at this link.

From Your Site Articles