Former President Donald Trump has referenced George Washington’s farewell address in the immunity case, suggesting that the Founding Fathers believed prosecuting presidents would be detrimental to the nation. In contrast, special counsel Jack Smith has invoked Richard Nixon's situation, questioning why Nixon required a pardon from President Gerald Ford in 1974 if he was immune from prosecution.
Given the Constitution's silence on whether former presidents can claim immunity from criminal prosecution, both Trump and Smith's legal teams have turned to historical precedents to bolster their arguments. This tactic is particularly strategic in a Supreme Court where conservative justices often consider historical practices in contentious issues like abortion and gun rights.
Trump has made pointed historical comparisons, such as suggesting that President Obama could have faced prosecution for drone strikes on American citizens or that President Roosevelt could have been charged for detaining Japanese Americans during World War II. Trump's central contention is that denying him immunity could pave the way for politically motivated prosecutions in the future.
On the other hand, Smith has emphasized that the historical incidents cited by Trump did not involve a sitting president attempting to retain power after losing an election. This distinction underscores the complexity of the legal arguments being presented in the immunity case.
