Trump celebrated the arguments presented in the Supreme Court stating that “it was clear” that there must be “presidential immunity”

On the seventh day of his criminal trial stemming from the investigation of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, former President Donald Trump celebrated that in Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court heard the arguments presented regarding presidential immunity and whether this applies to the accusation presented by the special prosecutor Jack Smith related to interference in the 2020 elections and the events that occurred on January 6.

According to what he declared to the media, Trump considered the allegations “monumental” for his cause, stating that it was “made clear” that presidential immunity must be maintained.

“I was forced to be here, and I’m glad I was because it was a very interesting day in a certain way,” Trump told reporters as he left the courthouse, where he remained for hours.

“The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity and the immunity having to do with presidential immunity,” the former president continued. “And I think it was made clear, I hope it is very clear that a president has to have immunity.”

During his speech, the former president argued again that, without presidential immunity, a president would be reduced to a “ceremonial” position.

“That’s not what the founders had in mind,” he said. “We want presidents that can get quite amazing—quite amazing.”

Afterward, the former president commented that we had to wait for the final ruling from the court judges, whom he praised for staying in their role.

“So let’s see how that turns out,” Trump said. “But again, I say presidential immunity is very powerful. Presidential immunity is imperative, or you practically won’t have a country anymore.”

A Supreme Court divided but leaning slightly toward Trump

Trump’s words came after his lawyer, John Sauer, presented arguments to demonstrate that the president maintains presidential immunity over electoral interference cases such as the one presented by prosecutor Smith.

Although the judges did not completely buy Sauer’s argument, they were open to the reasoning of the Republican leader’s lawyer, who stated before the magistrates that former presidents cannot be prosecuted with criminal charges for their actions as heads of state unless they are condemned by the Senate.

On the other side, Justice Department lawyers argued that Trump was not being accused, in this case, of any conduct that could be considered presidential action.

“What we seek to impose criminal liability on is a conspiracy to use fraud to subvert the election, one means of which was to try to make the Department of Justice complicit in this. The case would not have been different if the petitioner had been successful,” stated Michael Dreeben, attorney for Smith’s team.

The specialized site SCOTUSblog detailed that, at least on paper, the judges could side with Trump on “some presidential immunity.”

The analysis details that the highest court judges were “skeptical” of the federal appeals court ruling that rejected Trump’s argument that he has immunity from criminal charges based on his official acts as president.

According to the site, “some of the court’s conservative justices expressed concern about the prospect that, if former presidents do not have immunity, federal criminal laws could be used to target political opponents.”

However, progressive Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson clearly left open the possibility that Trump’s trial in D.C. can still be made because the accusation is based largely on his private conduct and not his official conduct.

Given this notorious division, the most decisive votes will be those of judges John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, who, on this occasion, positioned themselves between the opinions of the most progressive and conservative judges of the highest court.

“However, the timing of the court’s eventual opinion and the resulting trial remains unclear, leaving open the possibility that the court’s decision could push Trump’s trial past the November election,” stated the analysis of SCOTUSblog.