President Trump’s attorneys argue that in 234 years of American history, no president has been criminally prosecuted.
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump have filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, hoping to win a motion to dismiss one of the federal criminal cases against him on the basis of presidential immunity.
“Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the Presidency as we know it will cease to exist,” they argue.
The appeal was filed on Feb. 12, meeting a deadline an appeals court set that would have the court withhold its mandate rather than return the case to the district court.
In a 100-plus page filing, defense attorneys requested the Supreme Court issue a stay on the lower court decision, pending a review from the high court. Prosecutors have demanded that district court proceedings resume while President Trump pursues avenues of appeal.
“President Trump’s claim that Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts presents a novel, complex, and momentous question that warrants careful consideration on appeal,” the appeal reads.
They asked that the stay be extended until the Supreme Court has reviewed the case, and also stayed in the event of a petition for a rehearing in the appeals court, something the appeals court expressly didn’t grant in its own order.
“This order departs from the D.C. Circuit’s ordinary procedures,” the attorneys said.
The lawyers make the case that the Supreme Court grant the appeal, and review the case, because it involves an important area of law not yet settled by the court.
“The public importance of Presidential immunity cannot be overstated,” the appeal reads.
‘Cycles of Recrimination’
President Trump’s attorneys argue that in 234 years of American history, no president has been criminally prosecuted, and for good reason. To set such a precedent would open the floodgates, they say.
“If the prosecution of a President is upheld, such prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in destructive cycles of recrimination,” they argued.
“The threat of future criminal prosecution by a politically opposed Administration … will hang like a millstone around every future President’s neck, distorting Presidential decision-making, undermining the President’s independence, and clouding the President’s ability ’to deal fearlessly and impartially with the duties of his office.’”
