Conservatives criticized the federal appeals court ruling that former President Donald Trump lacks presidential immunity from prosecution for alleged criminal acts related to 2020 election interference.
Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik condemned the decision, stating it sets a dangerous precedent and threatens the core of the nation.
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling that President Donald Trump does not have immunity from prosecution sets a dangerous precedent, violates our Constitution, and threatens the very bedrock of our nation,” Rep. Elise Stefanik said.
I am honored to stand as an original cosponsor on @RepMattGaetz's resolution that President Donald Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. That is a fact.
Rogue Democrat operatives are attempting to use this lie to illegally take President… pic.twitter.com/ypbvKvhKqg
— Rep. Elise Stefanik (@RepStefanik) February 6, 2024
She expressed support for Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court and cosponsored a resolution asserting that Trump did not engage in insurrection.
“President Trump’s actions surrounding election integrity were within his official duties as the President as he was investigating legitimate Constitutional questions about the election,” she said. “The precedent set today by the D.C. Circuit’s decision means that future presidents who leave office will likely face politicized prosecutions by the opposing party.”
“I fully support President Trump’s efforts to appeal this unconstitutional ruling to the Supreme Court, where I expect a thoughtful decision to overturn this dangerous precedent,” she said.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson accused the Left of using “lawfare” tactics against Trump.
“I believe they have been after President Trump for partisan political purposes, I think that’s obvious, and we call it lawfare,” Johnson said, “and I think there is no other way to describe it.”
Mollie Hemingway highlighted the left-leaning nature of the panel deciding on Trump’s appeal and its potential impact on the case’s scheduling.
The decision’s implications on the 2024 election and Trump’s potential responses were also discussed.