TODAY: Trump Immunity Case Goes Before Supreme Court

It’s a big day for President Trump as the U.S. Supreme Court Justices heard oral arguments in Trump’s immunity case. Will the Supreme Court grant or deny Trump presidential immunity for official acts taken while he was President?
Here’s how we got to where we are today: Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 federal election case against President Trump accuses the former President of “obstruction of an official proceeding,” i.e., trying to overturn the 2020 election results. President Trump asserted that he had constitutional authority to investigate the validity of the 2020 election results.
Smith then argued that no President should have presidential immunity for official actions taken while in office: “A former President is subject to federal criminal prosecution for personal and official acts that violate valid criminal laws.” Such an argument means a President could be liable for any decision that goes wrong – a drone strike, for example. Trump refuted this outrageous claim and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the case.
The ACLJ filed an amicus brief in this massive case. We don’t believe that any President receives total blanket presidential immunity for any action as President. We have criminal laws on the books that would hold a President accountable if he, for example, took a bribe for appointing someone as an ambassador.
However, we believe that a President should have immunity for official decisions made while President. If a President is afraid to make tough decisions for fear of potential jail time, then the office of the President will be greatly weakened. As President Trump told reporters today, “If you don’t have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president.” He’s exactly right.
The oral arguments were ongoing while we were on air today, and from what we could tell, the Justices appeared to agree that no President should have blanket immunity, but they also didn’t believe in removing immunity completely. While it’s impossible to guess the outcome of a case, based on oral arguments, it appears that the justices may agree with our arguments.

https://aclj.org/government-corruption/stop-political-prosecution-of-president-trump?utm_medium=Video&utm_source=Rumble&utm_campaign=d-04252024_seg-rumsekulow_top-GC_typ-PT_con-politicalprosecution