Donald Trump has been on trial in New York since April 15 for suspicious payments.
IMAGO/TheNews2
The American Supreme Court should, barring any major surprise, reject the criminal immunity invoked by Donald Trump as former president after the debates on Thursday, but the scope of its decision will essentially depend on its speed in ruling.
Without immunity, you are not going to do anything, you become an honorary president
By deciding on February 28 to take up this issue, the highest court in the United States further postponed the federal trial of the former Republican president for attempting to illegally reverse the results of the 2020 election he won. by Democrat Joe Biden.
Trump wants to buy time
Targeted by four separate criminal proceedings, Donald Trump is doing everything possible to go to trial as late as possible, at least after the November presidential election in which he is a candidate.
The person concerned, on trial in New York since April 15 for suspicious payments during the 2016 campaign, deplored that the judge at this trial did not exempt him from appearing that day to attend the debates at the Supreme Court , the last of the session which ends on June 30.
“The president must have immunity, it has nothing to do with me,” assured Donald Trump. “Without immunity, you are not going to do anything, you become an honorary president”, for fear of being “indicted once you leave office”, he added.
“Unique in American History”
This trial in New York could be the only one to reach an outcome before the vote. The most politically charged case, the federal case for the 2020 election investigated by special prosecutor Jack Smith, is suspended until the Supreme Court decides on this question of criminal immunity of a former president.
The defense emphasizes that no predecessor of Donald Trump has been criminally prosecuted. “This indictment is a historic first because of the particular seriousness of the alleged behavior,” replies the special prosecutor in his written arguments.” The severity, scope and damage caused to democracy by the alleged crimes are unique in American history,” he insists.
There is one window left but it is narrow
The vast majority of legal experts predict a dismal failure for Donald Trump, as at first instance and then on appeal, despite the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, of which he appointed three of the nine members.
Steven Schwinn, professor of constitutional law at the University of Illinois at Chicago, tells AFP he expects “a majority, and perhaps unanimous, decision against Trump.” “But even if the Court hands Trump a decisive and final defeat, I think the prosecution will have a hard time getting to trial before the election,” he said.
Because for the trial, initially scheduled for March and postponed indefinitely due to the referral to the Supreme Court, to be held, the nine judges would have to rule shortly. “There remains a window but it is narrow and it closes,” former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason, professor of criminal law at George Washington University, told AFP.
(afp)
