Appeals Court Hears Trump’s Immunity Claim Ahead of 2024 Primaries

President Donald Trump was in a D.C. appeals court today arguing for immunity that protects him from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment for trying to overturn the 2020 election.

The court of appeals sought to answer a specific question: Do the actions of a President while in office – within the confines of his official duties – give him immunity from later prosecution? In other words, when does a President become liable for bad policies?

The answer to that question should be, yes, a President is protected for decisions made while in office. But for some reason, the argument got convoluted in today’s hearing. The Deep State prosecutors started focusing on “exceptions” rather than what the rules should be.

For example, the discussion in today’s hearing pivoted to whether George W. Bush could be criminally liable for bad information given to Congress that resulted in the Iraq War.

But this is a ridiculous argument. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and the Constitution protects Presidents for military decisions that are made.

Instead of getting lost in the weeds on “exceptions,” the court should have focused on the “execution clause” of the Constitution, which relates to a President taking action to ensure he is faithfully executing his duties as President. That’s what President Trump was doing when he was investigating voter fraud in the 2020 election – he was making sure the results of the election were legitimate, which was his job as President.

Instead, the focus became hypotheticals. Both the prosecution and defense did a poor job framing the arguments in the appeals court today.

As you likely know, my dad, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, personally argued for presidential immunity while defending President Trump during the impeachment trial. During that trial, my dad pointed out how the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the office of the President from being bogged down in lawsuits brought forth by political opponents.

I share my dad’s concerns about the suddenly popular approach of prosecuting Presidents for actions while in office. We are going down a slippery slope that allows too many lawyers to be involved in politics.

Also, the fear that one could be liable for prosecution will weaken the office of future Presidents. They will be afraid to make hard decisions in the best interest of the country out of fear of what could happen to them down the road.

At the end of the day, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final say in President Trump’s immunity case. Just as the Justices will have to decide whether the GOP frontrunner can be removed from the 2024 ballots after the outrageous decision by the Colorado Supreme Court.

As we told you, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of President Trump’s appeal to restore him to the ballot. The ACLJ is a party to the appeal as we represent the Colorado GOP. Our next brief is due January 18 – we are diligently preparing our brief as we seek to preserve the voting rights of Americans.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast provided a full legal analysis of President Trump’s court appearance to argue for immunity. Senior Counsel for International and Government Affairs Jeff Ballabon gave an update on the latest news in Israel’s mission to eradicate Hamas.

Watch the full broadcast below: