CNN Reporter Accuses Trump of Trying to ‘Scare’ SCOTUS Justices Into Accepting Sweeping Immunity Argument
CNN senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz accused former President Donald Trump and his legal team of attempting to “scare” the Supreme Court into accepting their argument that presidents have total immunity from prosecution for actions they took in their role as commander-in-chief on CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta Wednesday.
In a new brief filed with the Court, Trump’s lawyers argued that to reject his claim to “absolute immunity” would be to bring about “the end of the presidency as we know it.”
“He actually wants them to just totally dismiss the case against him and he goes boldly in language he hasn’t used before in this legal brief, saying, essentially trying to scare the justices into protecting the executive branch, the presidency, with an immunity bubble that no one can break,” submitted Polantz while evaluating the filing. “He says that there would be post-office trauma for anyone serving in the presidency. There would be de facto blackmail and extortion of people serving in office while they’re president if there was the threat of prosecution after they left office. It would be, quote, ‘the end of the presidency as we know it’ if there’s not immunity around the presidency”
She continued:
And his lawyers point out that when the D.C. Circuit, the appeals court before this, ruled against Trump and said, No, you don’t have immunity for breaking the law while you’re president, his lawyers are now saying that’s particularly bad for Trump and gerrymanders a situation where it would deprive him specifically of immunity because you should- you shouldn’t have immunity fall away if you break the law because you want to remain in power, that’s something that’s especially bad for Trump in this situation. So he wants to be able to not just break the law as president if you see fit as president, but also it doesn’t matter what the motive is that at all there.
“Well, and a lot of legal scholars, constitutional scholars would say if you did have total immunity as president, that would be the end of the presidency as we know it,” offered host Jim Acosta.
“That’s right. And the the appeals court did say that, you know, the reason you have laws is it prevents people from wanting to break them. And in this case, it’s prevented previous presidents before Trump from wanting to break the law,” concluded Polantz.
Watch above via CNN.
