The language in the pertains court ruling, which he understood meant” a former president may be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted,” was a source of contention for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday.
On Thursday, Roberts read aloud a piece of the court of appeals decision and asked Michael Dreeben, a Department of Justice ( DOJ) counselor, if he thought the piece was valid.
LISTEN:
]embedded articles]
A former leader may be charged for his formal works because the prosecution demonstrates that the former president has reportedly violated the laws, according to the court of appeals below, whose decision we are reviewing. Do you believe with that affirmation”? Roberts asked.
Dreeben argued that the decision” sounds tautologically accurate, but I want to point out that the president has an obligation to ensure that the rules are faithfully implemented.”
Roberts said he agreed it was “tautologically true”, and for that reason, it worried him.
” Well, the – I think it sounds tautologically true as well, and that, I think, is the clearest statement of the court’s holding, which is why it concerns me”, he said. ” As I read it, it says essentially a former president may be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted”.
Dreeben argued that is” never the government’s strategy” and added that” a trial does, of course, invoke federal criminal laws” and that grand courts vote to prosecute people based on claims.
Roberts made the point that it is frequently simple for lawyers to get a grand jury indictment and raised concerns about the potential for a attorney to not follow the law when bringing charges against a past leader:
Well, that’s what I – I mean, soon after that speech in the court — the judge’s mind, that’s what they said, but there’s no reason to worry because the attorney will act in good faith and there’s no reason to worry because a grand jury will have returned the prosecution. Now you understand how simple it is for a counsel to obtain an accusation in many cases, and relying on the prosecutor’s good belief does not suffice in some cases. I’m not suggesting below.
The situation is , Trump v. United States, No. 23- 939 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
