Senate divided over Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity

WASHINGTON – Former Justice Department officials clashed Tuesday at a Senate hearing on the Supreme Court decision that allegedly shielded former President Donald Trump from some criminal charges. Some called the ruling “deeply wrong” and “alarming,” while a former attorney general described it as “narrow” and in line with previous rulings.

The polarized reaction to the decision came as a federal judge begins to weigh whether Trump will face charges of attempted voter fraud in the 2020 election in light of the ruling. Prosecutors are scheduled to present their first arguments in defense of the charges on Thursday.

Philip Lacovara, a former deputy attorney general and former counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the court could not find anything in the Constitution or historical practice to support its ruling. In contrast, the Constitution recognizes that criminal prosecution is possible alongside impeachment, he said.

“The decision is deeply wrong and deeply dangerous,” Lacovara said.

Mary McCord, executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law School, said immunizing presidents for actions involving executive branch agencies could lead to presidents having the FBI or IRS investigate their political opponents without legitimate cause, or using the CIA for domestic operations.

“The potential abuse of power enabled by the court’s ruling and the limitations on Congress’s ability to act are alarming,” McCord said. “The reforms Congress has enacted in the wake of previous abuses of power would be ineffective in the face of presidents who are indifferent to upholding the rule of law.”

But Michael Mukasey, a former attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, said the decision was “narrow and consistent with precedent and constitutional principles.” He cited previous court rulings, including a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that gave presidents immunity from civil suits, but warned that the president’s power would be limited if he or she had to fear possible prosecution.

Without immunity, the presidency would be weakened by concerns about possible future consequences, Mukasey said.

Charges against Trump depend on Supreme Court decision

Trump, the first former president to face criminal charges, argued he was immune from prosecution for his actions while in office. He was convicted in New York of falsifying business records to pay hush money to a porn actress. He still faces charges in Georgia and at the federal level for trying to rig the 2020 election. He is seeking to have all three counts dismissed.

In an appeal of the federal indictment, the Supreme Court ruled on July 1 that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for core functions of their office, such as vetoes or pardons, and are presumptively immune from prosecution for official acts but not for private acts.

The decision prompted Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith to seek an updated indictment against Trump accusing him of rigging the 2020 election. The four counts remained the same, but the indictment dropped allegations that Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate false claims of election fraud because it was part of a president’s official duties to negotiate with an executive department.

Trump argues that the rest of the charges should be dropped. Smith is fighting for a continuance of the case, essentially arguing that Trump’s campaign activities to stay in office were private in nature and not part of his official duties.

Smith is due to present detailed arguments to keep the case alive by Thursday. Trump has until October 17 to respond.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan will then have to decide whether to drop some or all of the charges.

Senators polarize over significance of Supreme Court ruling

Chairman Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) called the decision “a landmark act of judicial fiat that places all future presidents above the law and protects them from criminal prosecution if they abuse the authority vested in them for personal or political gain.”

“The Justice Department could now serve as a weapon that a corrupt president can use against his opponents,” Durbin said. “Any sitting president could hide behind his office and commit the worst forms of misconduct.”

But the leading Republican, Senator Lindsey Graham, RS.C., said Republicans viewed the criminal charges against Trump in New York, Georgia and at the federal level as “politically motivated garbage.”

“You have opened Pandora’s box,” Graham said.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Senate argues over Supreme Court immunity decision for Trump