CNN commentator Adam Kinzinger argues against Donald Trump’s immunity.
via PBS
CNN commentator Adam Kinzinger stated that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from subpoenas, it would end American democracy.
via C-SPAN
On CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, Kinzinger agreed with Cooper that the ruling has major stakes. “It’s important pointing out that there’s a lot at stake here in this ruling,” Cooper said.
via CNN
Kinzinger said if the Court finds unlimited presidential immunity, he does not see how the presidency or democracy can continue, as it would allow a “bad actor” president to get away with anything by virtue of their title. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on April 25, 2024, regarding former President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from criminal charges related to the 2020 presidential election.
via CNN
This high-profile case, titled Donald J. Trump v. United States, has generated significant attention as it centers on the question of whether a former President enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during their tenure in office.
via CNN
Kinzinger said, “Oh, there’s a lot at stake. I mean, not just in terms of what it means for this election in my obviously, if the Supreme Court comes back of what we expect and say, you don’t have absolute immunity then potentially this trial will proceed.”
via C-SPAN
He added, “If they come back and say there is such thing as unlimited immunity I don’t see how the presidency, and frankly how democracy can continue. If you have a bad actor in place that literally can get away with anything so long as he or she has the title the president in front of their name.”
via C-SPAN
Kinzinger expressed hope for a resounding 9-0 or 8-1 defeat of Trump’s position, affirming subpoenas can be issued against a sitting president. He maintained the Court needs to firmly reject unlimited immunity to preserve the presidency and democracy.
via CNN
“This is a very important thing for the Supreme Court to take up. It may be why they decided to take this up after the appellate court, but they’re going to have to make their stamp. Hopefully it comes out 9-0, potentially 8-1. But it’s going to be a resounding defeat for Trump. I think,” he said.
via CNN
The case arises from a criminal trial in which Trump faces charges related to his actions following the 2020 presidential election, including allegations of conspiracy and obstruction.
via C-SPAN
Trump’s legal team contends that he should be immune from prosecution for official acts performed while in office, arguing that no former President has ever been prosecuted for such acts in the history of the United States.
via PBS
Special Counsel Jack Smith, representing the United States, has rejected Trump’s immunity claim, emphasizing that no support for such immunity exists in constitutional text, separation-of-powers principles, history, or logic.
via Inside Edition
Trump’s attorneys have highlighted the unprecedented nature of the case, asserting that the panel opinion concluded that presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts does not exist at all, which they consider a breach of precedent and historical norms.
via Inside Edition
They have referenced the case Fitzgerald v. Nixon to establish presidential immunity precedents and argued that all courts created under Article III of the Constitution lack the power to consider a president’s official discretionary acts. Smith has firmly rejected Trump’s arguments, stating that the claim of immunity based on the “outer perimeter” of official presidential duties finds no support in constitutional principles, history, or logic.
via C-SPAN
He has pointed out that Fitzgerald ‘s precedent was narrow and applied to civil cases only, asserting that a former President is not immune from all personal accountability for crimes committed through the exercise of official power.
via C-SPAN
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the legal accountability of former Presidents and the interpretation of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.
via GBNews
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump’s immunity claim, it could delay the election case and potentially impact the timing of any trial, particularly considering the upcoming presidential election.
via C-SPAN
The upcoming oral arguments at the Supreme Court regarding Donald Trump’s immunity claim are poised to address fundamental questions about the legal accountability of former Presidents. As both sides present their arguments, the Court’s decision is anticipated to have far-reaching implications for the ongoing legal proceedings and the broader understanding of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.
