According to Mediaite, former President Donald Trump’s legal team submitted a 71-page brief to the D.C. Court of Appeals just before the deadline, outlining their argument for Trump’s immunity from criminal prosecution. The brief, filed by Attorney John Sauer and others, asserts that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted for actions conducted while in office unless they are first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for those acts.
The argument hinges on the claim that Trump’s acquittal by the Senate in a previous impeachment trial bars prosecution for the conduct alleged in the indictment. The legal team contends that the political nature of the question about a president’s amenability to prosecution for an official act requires approval by Congress through impeachment and conviction before any court can judge the president’s conduct. They assert that, since this did not happen in Trump’s case, he enjoys absolute immunity.
“President Ford’s issuance of a prophylactic pardon to prevent a potentially bitter, protracted, divisive prosecution of a former President … reinforces the political and constitutional tradition against prosecuting Presidents — it does not undermine it,” Trump’s lawyers said.
However, critics point out a potential hurdle in this argument, citing the 1974 pardon of former President Richard Nixon by then-President Gerald Ford. According to Trump’s legal team’s interpretation of the law, such a pardon would not have been necessary if their claims about presidential immunity held true. In response, Trump’s lawyers argue that Ford’s pardon reinforces the political and constitutional tradition against prosecuting presidents, rather than undermining it.
It’s worth noting that during the impeachment proceedings against Trump in 2021, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell argued against the premise of Trump having “absolute immunity,” stating that former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by the criminal justice system or civil litigation.
