The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a question that will decide if the former president faces charges for efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a question that will decide if the former president faces charges for efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to review a fast-tracked petition asking if Donald Trump can use his status as a former president to claim immunity from criminal charges related to his effort to overturn the 2020 election.

The order came only hours after Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the justices to expedite consideration of Trump’s presidential immunity claim in his D.C. prosecution for election interference leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. The decision is not an agreement to hear Smith’s case, but rather an agreement to review his petition faster than normal.

  • DeconceptualistEnglish
    24•1 year ago

    Anything illegal should be charge-worthy, official or not, just like any other office. Actively holding the title of president entities immunity only as a delay, because that role also serves as commander-in-chief for the US. Having that seat empty during a prosecution could be hugely disruptive to the executive branch and strategically unwise for geopolitics.

    But once the new president takes over, there’s no longer any reason to delay the judicial process with temporary immunity.

    At least, that’s how I learned it in 6th grade, midwest public school.

    • @RememberTheApollo_
      11•1 year ago

      Which is precisely why trump wants to be a dictator. If he stays President, he’s perpetually immune.

    • @[email protected]
      6•1 year ago

      I’m actually pro prosecution / impeachment of presidents for that reason, we have a backup available so it doesn’t actually hurt us. But I have to disagree on official actions. Sending someone to war can’t be reckless endangerment, having someone drone striked can’t be murder, we can’t have the president sued for damages every time they sign a law that harms a business or industry.

      • DeconceptualistEnglish
        5•1 year ago

        Signing laws isn’t illegal in the first place.

        And I want to say I might be completely okay with holding those in power responsible for endangerment / drone strikes / murder / war.