This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68892030

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Trump immunity hearing: US Supreme Court hearing begins - BBC News Trump immunity hearing: Supreme Court pushes ex-president's lawyer on limits of immunity - BBC News
(32 minutes later)
Justice Gorsuch is bringing up presidential pardons. Chief Justice John Roberts proposes to Michael Dreeben that the court may have to issue an opinion that takes into account whether prosecutors are acting in good or bad faith.
He asks Trump's lawyer: "What would happen if presidents were under fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office?" He lists hypothetical examples such as if they were engaged in a drone strike. He asks whether the government is arguing "a former president can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted".
He adds: "It seems to me like one of the incentives that might be created, is for presidents to try to pardon themselves." Dreeben disputes this claim, saying that the case clearly invokes federal criminal law and the indictment of Donald Trump came after the allegations were presented to a grand jury.
Sauer replies: "That is certainly one incentive that might be created. The real concern is, is there going to be bold and fearless action? Roberts pushes back, noting that it is "easy" for prosecutors to build a case that receives a greenlight from a grand jury. He adds this happens "in some cases - I'm not suggesting that's the case here".
"Is the president going to make decisions where his political opponents are going to come after him as soon as he leaves office?" So, he asks, "why shouldn't we either send it back to the Court of Appeals or issue an opinion making clear that's not the law?"
Dreeben says there are "layered safeguards" to protect against unconstitutional and politically-driven prosecutions.
"We are not endorsing a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecution in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence."
FacebookFacebook
TwitterTwitter
ShareView more share optionsShare this postCopy this linkRead more about these links.ShareView more share optionsShare this postCopy this linkRead more about these links.
Copy this linkCopy this link