Breaking

Roberts Expresses Concern over Appeals Court’s Language in Presidential Immunity Ruling

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts took subject Thursday with the appeals courtroom ruling’s language denying former President Donald Trump’s presidential immunity declare – language he understands to imply “a former president can be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted.”

Roberts read aloud a chunk of the courtroom of appeals ruling on Thursday and requested Michael Dreeben, a Department of Justice (DOJ) counselor to the particular counsel, if he agreed with it.

LISTEN:

“The court of appeals below, whose decision we’re reviewing, said, ‘A former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has allegedly acted in defiance of the laws.’ Do you agree with that statement?” Roberts requested.

Dreeben stated the ruling “sounds tautologically true, but I –I want to underscore that the obligation of a president is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.”

Roberts stated he agreed it was “tautologically true,” and for that purpose, it frightened him.

“Well, the –I think it sounds tautologically true as well, and that, I think, is the clearest statement of the court’s holding, which is why it concerns me,” he stated. “As I read it, it says simply a former president can be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted.”

Dreeben argued that’s “not the government’s approach” and added that “a prosecution does, of course, invoke federal criminal law” and that grand juries vote to indict people based mostly on allegations.

Roberts emphasised that it’s typically straightforward for prosecutors to safe an indictment from a grand jury and raised issues in regards to the potential for a prosecutor to not act in good religion whereas pursuing fees towards a former president:

Well, that’s what I –I imply, shortly after that assertion in the courtroom — the courtroom’s opinion, that’s what they stated, however there’s no purpose to fret as a result of the prosecutor will act in good religion and there’s no purpose to fret as a result of a grand jury may have returned the indictment. Now you understand how straightforward it’s in many instances for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to carry an indictment, and reliance on the religion — good religion of the prosecutor might not be sufficient in the — some instances. I’m not suggesting right here.

The case is Trump v. United States, No. 23-939 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Source