We begin with a historic and head spinning day of
legal drama.
From New York to Washington,
Donald Trump and his alleged efforts to influence elections at
the center of it all.
At the Supreme Court, the former
president's case testing the boundaries of presidential power.
Trump's lawyers arguing he has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution
for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Lawyers for Special Counsel Jack Smith,
who is prosecuting Trump for those efforts,
arguing that presidents are not above the law if they
commit crimes.
The justices acknowledging the case before them is not just
about former President Donald Trump,
but also about future presidents and the presidency itself.
One critical question they're considering whether a president can have
immunity for an official act but not his private conduct.
AB CS Terry Moran leads us off at the Supreme
Court
At the heart of this case,
Donald Trump's unprecedented claim. His lawyer telling the justices that
presidents can never face criminal prosecution for anything they do
in office that can be linked to their official duties.
Absolute immunity. Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution,
there can be no presidency as we know it.
The sheer magnitude of that claim hung over the courtroom.
Several justices acknowledging the stakes.
This case has huge implications for the
presidency, for the future of the presidency,
for the future of the country.
In my view, whatever we decide is going to apply
to all future presidents.
Trump argues that because of that absolute immunity claim,
he cannot be prosecuted by special Counsel Jack Smith for
his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Liberal justices were having none of it.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressing Trump's lawyer on where his argument
could lead.
There's some things that are so fundamentally evil
that they have to be protected against.
If the president decides that his rival
is a corrupt person and he orders the military or
order someone to assassinate him,
is that within his official acts that for which he
can get immunity? It would depend on the hypothetical,
but we can see that could well be an official.
He could. And why? Because he's doing it for personal
reasons.
Justice Elena Kagan pointed to history.
Framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution.
Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a
monarch and the president was not supposed to be above
the law?
And Justice Katanji Brown Jackson asked.
If there is no accountability,
what would stop a president from,
quote, turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal
activity in this country?
If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the
table,
wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would
be emboldened to commit crimes with
abandoned while they're in office?
But conservative justices, while not embracing the full Trump argument,
made the case that presidents need some protection from criminal
prosecution.
Presidents have to make a lot of tough decisions about
enforcing the law, and they have to make decisions about
questions that are unsettled.
Did I understand you to say,
well, you know, if he makes a mistake,
he makes a mistake. He's subject to the criminal laws
just like anybody else.
You don't think he's in a special,
a peculiarly precarious position? In the end,
the courts seem to be searching for a middle ground,
a line between president's official act and their purely personal
deeds,
which could be grounds for prosecution.
And they hinted they could send the whole case back
down to the trial court for further proceedings.
Even if the court were inclined to recognize some immunity
for former president's official acts,
it should remain for trial because the indictment alleges substantial
private conduct.
Yes,
Terry Moran joining us now from the Supreme Court,
and Terry, the justices are expected to make a ruling
by June.
But they made it very clear they know exactly how
high the stakes are.
And you could feel that in the courtroom,
Wit is clear that at the end of the day
here,
the justices, majority of them,
want presidents to have some protection from prosecution,
but not as much as Trump wants.
And that likely means a complicated opinion,
more litigation in the lower courts in an almost certain
delay of any trial in this case until after the
November election.
Wit. All right, Terry. Thank you.