That's their argument. They're in Appellate Court now. Earlier, the case was in court in Manhattan, and Judge Victor Marrero wisely rejected the argument. So, they're making their way up to the Supreme Court, where they undboutedly believe (and could be right) that the Trump-packed bench will reverse the lower court rulings.
One of Donald Trump’s personal lawyers has argued to judges that the president cannot be investigated by local authorities while he is in office, even if he murdered someone on Fifth Avenue in New York.
William Consovoy, a personal attorney for Trump, tried to convince judges during a trial on Wednesday that Trump can reject a subpoena for his tax returns on grounds of presidential immunity.
[...]
Consovoy told judges that New York’s local prosecutors had partisan intentions to embarrass the president when issuing the subpoena. He argued there was precedent to the idea that, while a president is not immune from prosecution in federal court, “local pressures” on a president may be different.
Judge Denny Chin pushed him on that claim, referencing a statement Trump made in the midst of the 2016 election about the staunch loyalty of his supporters. “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” Trump said.
Chin asked Consovoy: “What’s your view on the Fifth Avenue example? Local authorities couldn’t investigate? They couldn’t do anything about it?”
“I think once a president is removed from office, any local authority – this is not a permanent immunity,” Consovoy said in response.
“Well, I’m talking about while in office. That’s the hypo[thetical]. Nothing could be done? That is your position?” Chin pressed further.
“That is correct,” Consovoy said.
[...]
Trump’s lawyers and New York prosecutors struck a agreement that says if Trump loses Wednesday’s battle in the court of appeals, his lawyers will take no more than 10 days to petition to the supreme court.
Guardian
Well, that's SOMEthing, I guess.
To be clear, Consovoy is not correct about the law. As the Supreme Court explained in Clinton v. Jones (1997), “it is settled law that the separation-of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States. Moreover, the Court added that “we have never suggested that the President, or any other official, has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity.”
[...]
Similarly, because the financial information sought by prosecutors also does not relate to Trump’s official duties, Trump’s claim of immunity [...] weak.
Vox
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment