Trump Shares Big News After Supreme Court ‘Immunity’ Hearing

Following last week’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing, former President Donald Trump expressed optimism, emphasizing the importance of presidential immunity in light of charges brought against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Trump described the hearing as “monumental” and asserted that it highlighted the necessity for a president to have immunity.

Speaking to reporters after attending the lengthy session in a Manhattan courtroom, where he is facing charges related to falsifying business records, Trump reflected on his ongoing defense against allegations of hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal.

Despite his request to attend arguments in Washington, D.C., Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Trump must be present in his Manhattan courtroom for each day of his criminal trial.

“I was forced to be here, and I’m glad I was because it was a very interesting day in a certain way,” Trump told reporters.

“The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity and the immunity having to do with presidential immunity,” Trump said. “And I think it was made clear, I hope it is very clear, that a president has to have immunity.”

Trump repeated his past claim that without immunity, presidents would be reduced to just a “ceremonial” position.

“That’s not what the founders had in mind,” he said. “We want presidents that can get quite amazing—quite amazing.” He added that the Supreme Court justices “were on their game.”

“So let’s see how that turns out,” he said. “But again, I say presidential immunity is very powerful. Presidential immunity is imperative, or you practically won’t have a country anymore.”

The justices are anticipated to deliver their decision in June.

Speculation among legal analysts suggests that the justices may potentially provide Trump with limited immunity for actions taken during his time in office and send the case back to a lower court for further review based on their criteria.

During the proceedings, Justice Neil Gorsuch contended that former presidents should be granted a degree of protection from future scrutiny once they have left office.

“It didn’t matter what the president’s motives were; that’s something courts shouldn’t get engaged in … I am concerned about future uses of criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives,” the Supreme Court justice said on April 25.

Gorsuch, Trump’s first of three Supreme Court appointees, hinted during the hearing that if justices decide not to hold that presidents should have some degree of immunity, then future presidents may be able to pardon themselves before leaving office.

He also said he didn’t want to decide whether or not a president could exercise that power, as the Epoch Times noted.

“We’ve never answered whether a president can do that; happily, it’s never been presented to us,” Gorsuch said of whether a president can issue a pardon to himself before leaving office.

“What would happen if presidents were under fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office?” Gorsuch also asked, citing a hypothetical situation in which former President Barack Obama could face prosecution for ordering a drone strike that killed civilians.

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” he stated.

“Whatever we decide is going to apply to all future presidents,” Justice Samuel Alito added.

Reports indicated that Chief Justice John Roberts, along with other justices, suggested that presidents should not be immune from prosecution in any circumstance.

ICYMI: Trump Upset After Documents Show Coordinated Legal Activity by Biden DOJ, NARA