Former President Donald Trump argues he is immune from criminal charges despite having left office in January 2021. On April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Mr. Trump’s case as he attempts to block special counsel Jack Smith from prosecuting him. Mr. Smith has charged Mr. Trump with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, the certification of Joseph R. Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.
In a 48-page amicus brief filed by 15 founding-era historians for the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice, the scholars contend there is no plausible historical case for Mr. Trump’s claim. From the first days of the republic, they contend, presidents were to receive no special privileges or immunities protecting them from criminal inquiries. Moreover, in 1974, the high court unanimously ruled that President Richard Nixon could not claim executive privilege to dodge a criminal subpoena to hand over the White House tapes in the Watergate investigation.
In this episode of History As It Happens, Pulitzer Prize-winning historians Jack Rakove and Joseph Ellis discuss the Founders’ views on the difference between the British monarchy and the American presidency and the potential consequences for democracy should the Supreme Court rule in Mr. Trump’s favor. Many legal observers don’t expect Mr. Trump to prevail. But by simply agreeing to hear the case — with a ruling expected by the end of June — the court has ensured that Mr. Trump’s federal election subversion trial may not begin until the fall.
History As It Happens is available at washingtontimes.com or wherever you find your podcast.
