During a Supreme Court debate on Thursday, Special Counsel attorney Michael Dreeben argued against the notion of U.S. presidents having blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. The debate centered around former President Trump's immunity claim in a case related to election interference.
Dreeben raised concerns that if a president were to commit a crime towards the end of their term, Congress might not have sufficient time to take action. He emphasized that the blanket immunity being advocated for by Trump's attorney would essentially shield a president from criminal prosecution unless impeachment and conviction were pursued, which he noted are challenging political remedies to achieve, especially in cases where misconduct occurs close to the end of a term.
Throughout the morning, justices questioned lawyers representing both Trump and the special counsel's office. Trump's legal team is working to establish that Trump should not be subject to prosecution for his actions aimed at impeding the certification of President Biden's 2020 election victory on the grounds that he was serving as president at the time.
