This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

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 14 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Trump immunity hearing: Supreme Court pushes ex-president's lawyer on limits of immunity - BBC News Trump immunity hearing: Supreme Court pushes ex-president's lawyer on limits of immunity - BBC News
(32 minutes later)
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. Justice Sotomayor steps in after that long back-and-forth with Alito, who asked if US democracy could be at risk without presidential immunity.
He asks whether the government is arguing "a former president can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted". Sotomayor responds with something of a speech.
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. There is no fail-safe system of justice, she says. "We fail routinely, but we succeed more often than not".
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". "In the end, if it fails completely, it's because we've destroyed our democracy on our own, isn't it?"
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