Thursday’s oral hearing in the Supreme Court thus concerns the federal indictment on the pressure and propaganda that led to the storming of the Capitol.
The idea was that that trial would begin in Washington at the beginning of March this year. But it has been postponed, indefinitely, while the Supreme Court considers the Trump camp’s claims that the former president has absolute immunity for everything said and done during his years in the White House.
About Trump and his lawyers get it right, the president can only be impeached by congressional impeachment. But several of the Supreme Court justices seem skeptical of that idea.
The discussion during Thursday’s hearing revolved instead around drawing the line — when a president acts officially, within the scope of office, and when the president acts as a private person and a campaigning politician.
Justice Elena Kagan, who belongs to the court’s liberal minority, raised a scenario where the president orders a military coup.
– Is it an official document? she wondered.
Trump’s lawyer John Sauer responded that it is up to Congress to define whether the president may have committed a crime in such cases.
Photo: Allison Bailey/NurPhoto/Shutterstock
Amy Coney Barrett – who is one of Trump’s conservative appointments in HD – was also on the coup theme. She also asked why the president in particular should have immunity from prosecution in criminal cases, when, for example, the judges in the Supreme Court do not.
– Why is the president different? she asked.
The judges in the Supreme Court weigh two threats to democracy against each other. One is what is at the heart of the indictment against Donald Trump – a president who engages in activities that could be classified as criminal. The other potential threat comes from various regimes trying to clamp down on their political opponents, by prosecuting former presidents for policy decisions.
– This case has great significance for the presidency and future presidents and the future of this country, stressed conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh on Thursday.
Michael Dreeben, who led the Justice Department’s lawsuit, warned of a situation in which a president could engage in assassination or treason — or deceive voters to prevent a shift in power. He emphasized that it was exactly the kind of abuse of power that the founding fathers were trying to prevent.
– The legislators knew all too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong, he said.
Donald Trump may lose in theory and win in practice.
The time crunch before the 2024 election is becoming increasingly acute.
The Supreme Court can delay the trial further. In part, the judges can choose to wait to come up with a statement until the turn of the month June–July. In part, the judges can choose to send cases back to a lower instance, with demands for further investigations. In both cases, it will be difficult to conduct a trial before the election this autumn.
If Trump wins the election, he could order the Justice Department to drop the case or even pardon himself.
