I'm entitled to immunity. Every president has immunity,
especially one that did the job I did.
I did a great job.
Former President Donald Trump's claims certainly sound audacious.
It's hard to think of a more unamerican or anti
constitutional argument than the idea that the president can commit
crimes while in office with impunity.
That's such an absurd argument.
And yet the Supreme Court is hearing Donald Trump's claim
of just that,
and it has to be taken seriously.
Trump wants absolute immunity as he fights the indictment brought
by special Counsel Jack Smith on behalf of the Justice
Department.
Trump was charged over his efforts to overturn the 2020
election results and his role in the January 6th attack
on the Capitol.
This is a court dominated by conservative justices.
Three of whom were appointed by Donald Trump.
Several justices previously have tried to fortify presidential powers,
and the question is untested.
Can a former president be shielded from criminal prosecution for
actions he took while in office?
Donald Trump and Jack Smith,
on behalf of the US government,
have two different arguments about this in lower court.
Trump's lawyer even said in response to one question,
that if a president ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate
a political rival,
he'd still be protected from prosecution.
As Trump appeals to the 9 justices,
he says in a brief that a ruling against him
would condemn future presidents effectively to blackmail or extortion at
the hands of political opponents.
As for the crux of his legal argument,
he tells the justices the principle of separation of powers,
the idea that each branch of government has separate and
independent powers bars courts from sitting in judgment of a
president's official actions.
He insists that anything he did to protest the 2020
election was part of his official work.
Special Counsel Jack Smith counters the constitutional principles lead to
the opposite result,
a trial for Trump. He says nothing in the American
history or past court cases supports Trump's position.
Smith goes back to the founding era,
saying the framers of the Constitution never endorsed such criminal
immunity for a former president.
Then Smith turns the example of Richard Nixon and the
Watergate cover up.
Nixon eventually was forced from office in 1974,
and President Gerald Ford pardoned him for any criminal conduct
while in office.
That, Smith argues, was recognition that a former president could
face criminal trial.
Smith's side will argue that even if the justices say
in some instances a former president might be shielded from
prosecution.
Never could a former president be immune from charges of
subverting an election.