A group of former Republican officials, including ex-Senator John Danforth and former Solicitor General Charles Fried, has urged a federal appeals court to reject Donald Trump’s claim of “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution. They argue that supporting Trump’s immunity plea would set a dangerous precedent, potentially encouraging future presidents to engage in criminal conduct.
Photo: Business Insider
Trump’s Immunity Claim Criticized by Former GOP Officials
In a recent amicus brief accepted by the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, former officials for Republican presidents contested Trump’s assertion of “absolute immunity” from criminal charges related to alleged election interference in 2020. The officials emphasized that such immunity would weaken constitutional principles and could embolden outgoing presidents to resort to criminal acts to retain power.
Special Counsel Jack Smith previously accused Trump of conspiring to obstruct Congress and maintain his presidency after losing to Joe Biden. Trump contends that he cannot face criminal charges for actions taken during his presidential term. However, the GOP officials argue that this argument is weak and poses a threat to the Constitution.
The amicus brief highlights the concern that granting immunity to a former president might encourage unlawful actions by future presidents attempting to overturn election results. The officials express worry about the potential use of military or federal agents in coup attempts, citing real and alarming possibilities. They stress the importance of preventing the abuse of presidential immunity for criminal conduct.
GOP Figures Advocate Against Dangerous Precedent
Prominent Republican figures, including John Danforth, Charles Fried, and Mickey Edwards, underscore the dangers of endorsing Trump’s immunity claim. They argue that allowing a former president immunity for potential criminal conduct would undermine the core principles of the Constitution and open the door to abuses of executive power by subsequent presidents.
The officials reject Trump’s argument that he should be shielded from criminal charges, emphasizing the need to prioritize constitutional integrity over individual immunity claims. They contend that the court’s decision in this matter will have far-reaching implications for the balance of power and the rule of law.
