'Worked so far': Legal experts flatten Trump's SCOTUS immunity argument
In his Tuesday filing to the U.S. Supreme Court, Donald Trump continues to argue that without absolute immunity from criminal prosecution every president would be subject to bribery — if not fully hindered from making any decisions.
And legal analysts continue to call the theory bunk.
Taking to the internet after the filing from Trump's lawyers, former Justice Department senior prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said that in nearly 250 years, lack of immunity hasn't yet been a problem for a U.S. president.
"Trump brief 'A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents,'" he quoted. "It's been working pretty well so far without immunity."
On Threads, former ethics czar Norm Eisen couldn't help but point out just how "abhorrent" Trump's position is. It claims, he said, that Trump "is above the law" — and all presidents should be.
"The lies literally began with the very first sentence in the brief that 'no former or current president faced criminal charges for his official acts,'" Eisen continues. "Because 'the president cannot function' if such charges can be brought. That's false: the reason no other POTUS faced criminal charges is because none engaged in conduct like that of Trump."
"Returning to the introduction: It's notable for its complete failure to contend with the actual problem here, which is the balance between the admitted need to protect presidents from frivolous criminal investigation and prosecution," he continues. "BUT also to assure when, like Trump, they allegedly break the law they are held accountable like any other American when they allegedly break the law."
Another problem in the filing is that Trump's lawyers concede their own argument in the first page of the brief, he said.
ALSO READ: Tax the rich and end Republican welfare for the wealthy
"Trump admits that no president has ever been charged and yet says denying absolute immunity would change that," Eisen explained. "But [the Supreme Court] has never held that absolute immunity exists! We've gotten along fine without it because no president has acted like Trump."
He also explained that in a brief to the Supreme Court, words are like currency.
"Trump squanders almost four precious pages on his stubborn misreading of Marbury v. Madison," Eisen said, noting that the Washington, D.C. Appeals Court already trounced that argument in its ruling.
According to Trump, he acted "based on voluminous information available to President Trump in his official capacity, that the election was tainted by extensive fraud and irregularities."
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Trump's argument that he should be immune from criminal prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election result. It is scheduled to start April 25.