Presidential immunity ruling a major victory for former President Donald J. Trump

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that a president is “not above the law” but has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office.

“The President therefore cannot be prosecuted for exercising his basic constitutional powers and is entitled, at a minimum, to presumptive immunity from prosecution for all of his official acts,” Roberts said.

“As for unofficial acts of a president, there is no immunity,” Roberts added, sending the case back to a lower court to determine which of the charges the former president faces involve official conduct.

Former President Donald Trump called the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity a “huge victory” for democracy.

“Great victory for our Constitution and Democracy. Proud to be an American!” Trump wrote in capital letters on his Truth Social platform.

By six votes of the conservative justices against three (those of the progressives), the court ruled that a president enjoys a certain immunity from prosecution.

Statements by constitutional expert

Due to the relevance of the topic and for a better understanding of our readers, DIARIO LAS AMÉRICAS contacted constitutional lawyer Ángel Leal, one of the most recognized voices in South Florida.

“The Supreme Court found, consistent with our constitutional framework of independence or separation of powers, that the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from prosecution for actions that occur within his constitutional authority, under Article 2 of the United States Constitution and any other clause.”

“This means that anyone who has held, holds, or will hold the Presidency of the United States is entitled to a presumption of presidential immunity when it comes to an official act in the executive branch.”

“The Supreme Court holds that, at a minimum, the President should be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Justice Department can show that imposing a criminal punishment or penalty for an act that occurred while in office would not jeopardize the President’s authority and functions as head of the executive branch; that is, there is a presumption of immunity for any official action; and it is rebuttable if the Justice Department or any prosecuting entity is able to show that it does not interfere with his office and function as head of the executive branch of the United States. And finally, the decision clarifies that there is no immunity for his unofficial acts. So, in any case that has to do with a former president, the following analysis would have to be made first: was it constitutional conduct, was it conduct of an official nature in accordance with his mandate, or was it of an unofficial nature unrelated to his presidential administration?”

Impact on pending cases

Asked whether Trump is in a better position to face charges in other pending criminal cases, the lawyer said:

“It depends on the case. But this ruling does affect the legal case that was brought before the Supreme Court in relation to the events of January 6 at the Capitol in Washington, regarding the alleged obstruction of an official proceeding.

“Now Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the District of Columbia, who is presiding over the criminal case, will have to hold a hearing to determine whether the conduct alleged in the indictments is of a constitutional, official or unofficial nature.”

“It also affects the Georgia case, which is in any case in jeopardy due to questions about whether prosecutor Fani Willis should ultimately be disqualified from the case. That determination is pending.”

“As for the reference to the classified documents found in Mar-a-Lago, I see it as more questionable that it will affect him, because it really has to do with actions that were taken after Trump left the Presidency. However, and in a certain way, it could affect him sideways due to the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioning the legality of the appointment of Jack Smith as special prosecutor in the January 6 case, which is part of the arguments of the Mar-a-Lago case.

“There is already a verdict on the trial in New York, there will be an appeal and it has to do with actions before the mandate Trump’s presidential election, although there has always been a kind of presidential immunity argument by defense lawyers, because certain accusations refer to events that occurred after he assumed the Presidency. In the end, I think the most affecting case is the one that was brought to the Supreme Court regarding the events of January 6 in Washington and the Georgia case, in which he is allegedly accused of trying to alter the election results in that state during the presidential elections in November 2020.

Regarding the alleged coincidence that the Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision hours after the controversial presidential debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald J. Trump, Leal considered:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision has nothing to do with the presidential debate. This was a very important decision, an issue that had never been formally decided by the Supreme Court.”

“The last time we saw anything like what we’re experiencing now, with regard to these accusations, was during Richard Nixon’s term in office, and he never got to the point of litigation or a judicial determination because he resigned.”

“The debate in this case is irrelevant to the Supreme Court’s decision. The judges accepted this case from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, it is an issue of great national relevance and it does not only have to do with Trump, but with any person who has occupied the Presidency or any future President.”

Document issued by the Supreme Court

Former President Donald Trump remains ahead of Joe Biden in all national polls in terms of voting intention for the November presidential election. In key states, the margin even exceeds 9%.

Trump’s unstoppable advance

Hispanic voting intentions for Republican Donald Trump have grown steadily, with the latest polls showing him with an approval rating of close to 50% just months before the presidential elections in November.

In 2016, he obtained only 26% of the Latino vote nationwide. In 2020, that percentage rose to 38%, and today the advantage is much wider, close to 50% in voting intentions.

After Biden’s disastrous performance in the first presidential debate, the margin of difference should increase after even newspapers such as The New York Times, which has a strong influence on national politics, are calling for the President’s resignation. The cover of Time in red and Biden walking around a corner with his head down are some of the articles that directly attack the president’s reelection.

Speculation about Biden’s possible replacement as the Democratic presidential candidate has gained momentum following the presidential debate. However, the Democrats, according to news agencies, have closed ranks around the White House tenant, who for several months has set off all the alarms in Washington due to a visible and aggravated mental and physical deterioration, also exposed in a conclusive report by special prosecutor Robert Hur on the classified documents found in several of his properties.

Biden was not only physically weak during the first presidential debate, but disoriented, slurring his tongue and lost in some of his answers to important questions. On the screen, Biden stared, mouth agape, as Trump spoke.

The Supreme Court’s decision deals a blow to the far-left and Democrats’ attempts to convict former President Trump in the Georgia cases and the January 6 events in Washington before the presidential election. These cases, with a marked political tone, had already been postponed for various reasons.

For months, Trump’s defense team has been seeking an extension of the start dates in the various trials. Except for the New York trial involving porn actress Stormy Daniels, they have been successful in the rest, especially in Georgia.

Georgia, another great victory

An appeals court has suspended the case opened in Georgia against Trump, where he is accused, along with others, of supposed electoral interference.

The move was made pending a review of a trial judge’s decision to allow Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on the case following her public affair with former Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade, who has been the subject of a public disqualification battle over privacy interference in the case.

Trump, 77, is charged in Georgia with participating in an alleged conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election in that state.

The 45th president in U.S. history and his co-defendants appealed Judge Scott McAfee’s ruling, and the Georgia Court of Appeals announced it would hear the appeal on Oct. 4.

The former president, who is seeking to return to the White House in the November elections, scored a major victory with this suspension, according to experts.

“It’s a big victory for the Trump team, basically eliminating any chance of that Georgia trial before the elections,” constitutional lawyer and former prosecutor Sabino Jauregui explained to DIARIO LAS AMÉRICAS.

“There may never be a trial, because the fact that the Court of Appeals accepted the case in the first place and froze any future proceedings means that it is considering completely disqualifying prosecutor Fani Willis from the case.”

“If they had agreed with the lower court’s decision, they would have rejected the case, thinking that the judge was acting correctly. By accepting the case, there is a good chance that they will want to go much further and disqualify Fani Willis,” Jauregui said.

In March, the judge overseeing the case rejected an attempt by Trump and several other co-defendants to remove the district attorney who brought the charges from the case following revelations that she had an intimate relationship with the man she hired as a special prosecutor, whom she allegedly paid more than $600,000 and from whom she allegedly profited.

Ángel Leal, a constitutional lawyer and immigration expert, agrees with Sabino Jauregui after the suspension of the case in Georgia. “The chances of a trial are almost zero (…) In the end, there was a right to appeal this motion and the Court of Appeals accepted it. That does not mean that they have made a ruling, but by accepting this motion they indicate that they take the matter very seriously.

Georgia, like the Washington case presented to the Supreme Court, means two great victories – along with the presidential debate – for former President Donald Trump, who since 2016 has faced political harassment and persecution from Democrats and the far left to prevent him from fulfilling his presidential mandate and, second, from reaching the White House again, but the doors for the former president are opening as the time moves towards the presidential elections.

The Democrats, for their part, are increasingly stumbling against the great wall they have turned Trump into, who since his candidacy in the primaries has remained firm and unscathed in the face of all the judicial accusations, which have given him unstoppable popular support from tens of millions of Americans. In just 72 hours after the guilty verdict in Manhattan, his electoral campaign raised more than 200 million dollars.

Change Biden as presidential candidate or continue betting on him, the left in the US is today literally against the wall.

(email protected)