On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about whether previous president Donald Trump faces charges of trying to reverse the effects of the 2020 election, as Special Counsel Jack Smith has accused him of doing.
A majority of the Supreme Court judges appeared to consent with Trump’s lawyers ‘ claims that there is some level of immunity that can be extended beyond the course of business. Traditional Justice Samuel Alito was one of them, citing the “old saw about indicting a sausage sandwich” while questioning the president’s Michael Dreeben.
“]T] his situation may have effects that go far beyond this specific trial. Federal great injuries will protect former presidents from unjustified indictments, moving on to the second level of protection that the D.C. Circuit cited. How many security is that”? Alito asked.  ,
Dreeben responded by arguing that” some fears about groundless prosecutions are n’t supported by evidence” and that” they’re not going to get out of the starting gate.” ‘ ,
” I mean, there — there’s the old saw about indicting a ham sandwich,” Alito quipped”. I mean, you had a lot of knowledge in the Justice Department. You see a lot of instances where the grand jury refused to prosecute a case even though the U.S. solicitor or another federal prosecutor was actually trying to do so. ”  ,
” There are such instances,” Dreeben replied.  ,
” Are there? ” Alito pressed, before adding”, Every once in a while there’s an eclipse, too. ”  ,
According to reports, Sol Wachtler, a former chief prosecutor of New York State, and the New York Daily News spoke about the “indict a sausage sandwich” phrase in January 1985. Watschtler claimed for the release that area attorneys have a lot of influence on great courts, and that they “generally may get them to” indict a ham sandwich.
” A quarter afterwards, the New York Times noted that Wachtler believed great juries’ operate more often as the lawyer’s slave than the individual’s protect.’ That belief—that lawyers may find great courts to do whatever they want them to do, may appear familiar” to some,  , Slate reported.  ,
The event is , Trump v. United States, No. 23- 939 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
