Trump Claims He Protected Election System as Supreme Court Weighs Immunity

Former President Donald Trump is arguing that he was protecting, not subverting, the election system ahead of a critical Supreme Court hearing on his immunity from criminal prosecution. Trump's lawyers claim his actions to overturn the 2020 election results were official acts as president to safeguard the integrity of the race, rather than a criminal conspiracy as alleged by federal prosecutors.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday to determine whether Trump should enjoy some kind of comprehensive immunity from criminal prosecution for actions related to his presidency. Trump's legal team has gone so far as to suggest a president cannot be prosecuted even for using the military to assassinate a rival unless they were first impeached, a wholesale rewriting of the government's accusations.

Why this matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case could have significant implications for presidential power and accountability. If the court rules in Trump's favor, it could set a dangerous precedent where a president with absolute immunity could potentially order the assassination of a political rival without facing criminal consequences.

Most legal experts believe it is highly unlikely the Supreme Court will fully embrace Trump's sweeping assertion of absolute immunity, given its previous rejection of similar claims. However, the court's decision to take up the case indicates they see some merit in Trump's argument, even though a lower court had rejected his immunity claim.

The timing of the court's decision is also a key factor, as a delay in the ruling could make it more challenging for the special counsel to complete the trial before the next election. Even if the court issues a prompt ruling, there is a risk that it may introduce additional legal complications that will take time to sort out.

Key Takeaways

• Trump claims his actions to overturn 2020 election were official acts.
• Supreme Court to decide if Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution.
• Ruling could set precedent on presidential power and accountability.
• Experts believe full immunity unlikely, but case may delay trial.
• Prosecutor argues Trump's immunity claim lacks precedent and undermines checks on power.