Jamie Raskin: Supreme Court must reject Trump’s immunity claims

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Thursday implored the Supreme Court to reject former President Trump’s immunity claim in the federal election interference case and to do so “as quickly as possible.”

“The Supreme Court must decide this question as quickly as possible if justice is to be served, and it’s got to reject the extravagant and baseless claim of presidential immunity,” Raskin said in an interview on CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

Trump’s legal team is arguing that his status as a former president shields him from charges in the federal case related to his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election. Trump’s team appealed the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, after she declined his motion to toss out the case based on his immunity claim.

Special counsel Jack Smith, whose office brought the indictment against Trump, petitioned the justices to weigh in immediately on the matter, in order to keep the trial on track to begin March 4. Trump’s team has fought back, asking the Supreme Court to hold off on weighing in on the matter.

“The Special Counsel identifies no compelling reason for the extraordinary haste he proposes. Instead, he vaguely asserts that the ‘public interest’ favors resolution on a dramatically accelerated timetable, to ensure that President Trump may be brought to trial in the next few months,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in the filing, adding, “Importance does not automatically necessitate speed. If anything, the opposite is usually true.”

Raskin, formerly a constitutional law professor, stressed the importance that the Supreme Court make a definitive ruling in the matter.

“Well, they’ve got to take it on. It is a ridiculous claim that the president can commit any crime that he or she wants while in office and can’t be prosecuted, whether it’s murder or rape or conspiracy to overthrow the government,” Raskin said.

“And in fact, Article One, Section three, clause seven of the Constitution says that even if you’ve gone through an impeachment, that does not absolve you of criminal liability or protect you from criminal prosecution later,” Raskin continued. “You may remember at the end of the Senate impeachment trial, even those who voted to acquit Donald Trump like [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)], were saying he, of course, stands for criminal prosecution and is liable later for the things that he’s done.”