On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Donald Trump’s argument for immunity from prosecution for his efforts to steal the 2020 presidential election. All, or nearly all, of the justices probably agree that former presidents who seize power and try to stay in office illegally can be prosecuted. Some justices may want to clarify whether the doctrine of presidential immunity applies to other situations, such as the president’s actions as commander-in-chief during wartime. think. However, judges should also recognize that if the courts do not resolve these issues quickly and decisively, there could be significant adverse consequences.
If the delay means that this Trump case is not tried this year, the public may never hear the important and historic evidence that was laid out in the grand jury, and our system may not be the most responsible for January 6th. We may never be able to hold a man responsible.
The Jan. 6 House Select Committee hearing and 2022 final report was based on testimony from dozens of Republican members of Congress, including the White House, the Justice Department, and the 2020 President. They included people who worked closely with Trump on his campaign. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election-related indictment of Mr. Trump relies on many of the same first-hand witnesses. Although the special prosecutor reached many of the same conclusions as the select committee, the indictment is subject to a separate and independent investigation.Evidence was developed and presented to a grand jury in Washington, D.C.
The indictment and public reporting suggest that the special counsel had access to important evidence that the committee did not have. For example, the grand jury appears to have received evidence from witnesses such as Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Trump aide Dan Scavino, both of whom declined to testify in our investigation. Members of Trump’s White House General Counsel’s Office and other White House aides, as well as Vice President Mike Pence and his advisers, also testified in full, without any restrictions based on executive privilege, according to public reports. Suggested.
The special counsel’s indictment details Trump’s plan to overturn the 2020 election, including fraudulent use of electoral rolls in multiple states. According to the indictment, senior White House, Justice Department and other advisers repeatedly warned Trump that his claims of election fraud were false and that his January 6 plan was illegal. Mr. Trump chose to ignore these warnings. (On January 7, 2021, White House Counsel Eric Hirschman told Trump’s alleged co-conspirator John Eastman, “Hire a good criminal defense attorney. You’re going to need one.”) ) There is little room for doubt. Trump aides also told a federal grand jury on Jan. 6 how they had repeatedly begged the president to order violent rioters to leave the Capitol, and how Trump had refused to do so. He said he briefed the jury minute by minute. It took several hours to do so while watching the attack on television. This historic testimony about the former president’s conduct is likely to remain secret until the special counsel takes the case to trial.
As a criminal defendant, Mr. Trump for many years had access to federal grand jury materials related to the January 6 indictment and all testimony obtained by our task force. He knows what all these witnesses said under oath, and he understands the risks he faces at trial. That’s why he is doing everything he can to postpone the Jan. 6 federal criminal trial until after the November election. If the trial is postponed until after this fall and Trump is re-elected, he will certainly fire the special counsel, order the Justice Department to drop all January 6 cases, and block critical grand jury testimony. will try to prevent it from ever coming to light again. Day.
I know how Trump’s delay strategy works. Our committee had to spend months on his privilege claim (Trump v. Thompson) before we were able to gain access to White House records. Court records and public reporting suggest the special counsel also spent considerable time defeating Trump’s executive privilege claims aimed at preventing key evidence from being presented to the grand jury. has been done. The public can fully appreciate what Mr. Trump did on January 6th and what a man capable of that kind of depravity could do if he regained the formidable powers of the presidency. As such, all this evidence should be presented in open court.
Earlier this year, a federal appeals court issued a lengthy opinion on immunity less than a month after oral arguments. History shows that the Supreme Court can act just as quickly when necessary. And the court should make its decision in a way that does not lead to further, time-consuming appeals of the president’s immunity. It is impossible for the President of the United States to try to steal an election and seize power, but our judicial system cannot bring him to justice before the next election in four years.
Trump believes he can intimidate judges and their families, assert baseless legal defenses, and thereby avoid responsibility altogether. Through this act, he seeks to destroy our institutions. If Trump’s tactics prevent the Jan. 6 trial from proceeding normally, he will also be successful in hiding important evidence from the American public — Trump on the rule of law , the atrocities of January 6th, and the president’s inhumanity. He has deep character flaws that make him unfit to be president. The Supreme Court should understand this reality and conclude without delay that immunity does not apply here.
Republican Liz Cheney is a former U.S. congresswoman from Wyoming who served as vice chair of the House Elections Committee on January 6th.
The Times is committed to publishing Diversity of characters To the editor. Please let us know what you think about this article or article.here are some chip. And this is our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section. Facebook, Instagram, tick tock, whatsapp, X and thread.
