Andy McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and expert on legal matters, dives into the complexities surrounding Donald Trump's legal battles. He discusses the recent court ruling that denied Trump's claim for presidential immunity, detailing its historical context and constitutional implications. The conversation also covers the challenges of holding a president accountable and the strategic legal maneuvers involved in ongoing cases. McCarthy provides insights into the timelines of Trump's various trials and the potential ramifications for future elections.
A federal appeals court has denied Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity, stating that there is no credible way to invent an immunity from criminal prosecution for a president based on the Constitution.
The court dismissed Trump's double jeopardy claim, emphasizing that impeachment is solely a political process and not a judicial or criminal prosecution, and that double jeopardy protection only applies to the same crime.
Deep dives
Trump's claim of presidential immunity denied by appeals court
A federal appeals court denied Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity, rejecting the argument that a president should be immune from federal criminal prosecution. The court's ruling emphasized that there is no credible way to invent an immunity from criminal prosecution for a president based on the text and original understanding of the Constitution. It pointed out that even sitting presidents have been subject to subpoena in criminal investigations, demonstrating that the interests of the presidency and the president must give way to the demands of the criminal justice system. The court also distinguished between the president's discretionary actions, which cannot be reviewed by the courts, and ministerial actions dictated by Congress, which the court argued should not grant immunity from prosecution.
Double jeopardy claim dismissed in Trump's legal battle
The panel dismissed Trump's double jeopardy claim, considering it weak compared to other arguments. Trump claimed that the impeachment clause in the Constitution allows for prosecution in the courts if a president is convicted in an impeachment trial. However, the court clarified that impeachment is solely a political process and not a judicial or criminal prosecution. Furthermore, the charges in the indictment against Trump differ from the impeachment charges, undermining the double jeopardy claim. The court emphasized that double jeopardy protection only applies to the same crime, and in this case, the charges were distinct.
Trump's legal strategy focuses on delay and potential Supreme Court appeal
Trump's legal strategy appears to be centered around delaying the case until after the election. The court set a deadline for Trump to decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court or seek a rehearing from the entire DC Circuit. By appealing to the Supreme Court, Trump can continue to withhold the mandate, preventing any action in the trial court. However, if he seeks a rehearing, the case would be sent back to the trial judge. Trump's goal is to push the case beyond the election, allowing him to potentially dismiss the indictment if he wins the election or secure a future pardon. The timeline for the case will also depend on the Supreme Court's ruling on the obstruction statute, which may potentially impact the indictment against Trump.
What comes next in former President Trump’s legal maneuverings now that his immunity claim has been denied by federal court? Get the facts first on Morning Wire.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.