In a potentially landmark legal case, former Trump attorney, Timothy Parlatore, has weighed in on the ongoing Colorado appeal to the Supreme Court. Parlatore believes that the most effective defense for the Trump team is to argue that state courts do not possess the power to enforce the charges. He points to the 14th Amendment, which explicitly grants Congress the authority to enforce its provisions. Congress has already exercised this power through the passing of statute 18 U.S.C. 2383, expanding the scope of the insurrectionist ban. Parlatore further highlights that Congress has previously impeached Donald Trump for insurrection, and he was subsequently acquitted. This, Parlatore argues, suggests that the case has already been litigated under the provisions provided by the 14th Amendment, Section 5.
Regarding the impeachment point, Parlatore expresses his belief that while impeachment influences the 14th Amendment litigation, it does not invoke double jeopardy for criminal prosecutions. He does not consider the argument for double jeopardy to be a winning one in the context of the January 6th prosecution. However, he believes that it could be effective regarding 14th Amendment cases.
Turning to the federal election subversion case, Parlatore remarks on the special counsel's rebuttal of Trump's claim for absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. He highlights the special counsel's argument, stating that granting such immunity would allow presidents to commit crimes to maintain their hold on office. Parlatore believes that a blanket immunity is too broad and doubts the courts would accept such a claim. Instead, he suggests a more limited and targeted immunity for specific acts could have a chance of success. However, he acknowledges that this argument would need to be presented during a trial, where a jury could assess whether Trump's actions were within his duties as chief executive.
Parlatore concludes by asserting that the legal territory being traversed in these cases is unprecedented. He notes that a credible argument for immunity could potentially be made if Trump's defense can demonstrate that he acted based on the information available, believed there was fraud, and as the chief executive, took necessary measures to investigate. However, he emphasizes that this argument will need to be presented in court and that the credibility of such a claim remains uncertain at this stage.
As the Colorado appeal awaits its hearing in the Supreme Court and the federal election subversion case continues to unfold, legal experts and observers are eagerly awaiting the outcomes that will inevitably shape the legal landscape. The arguments and defenses put forth by the Trump team will undoubtedly play a crucial role in the determination of these cases, ultimately setting potential precedents for future proceedings.
