Obama has ordered his right-hand man to question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, former Attorney General Eric Holder expressed his concern over the potential ruling by the Supreme Court on former President Trump’s assertion of presidential immunity. Holder’s apprehension stems from the delay in the Court’s decision regarding this matter.
Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is tied to federal charges concerning the storage of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, as well as issues related to the 2020 election and the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is anticipated by the end of the month.
During an interview on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House,” hosted by Nicolle Wallace, Holder, who served as Attorney General under President Obama, suggested that some justices might argue that a president could be exempt from criminal laws if such actions were taken in an official capacity.
Holder remarked, “The idea that a president could violate criminal law while performing official duties and be excused is both absurd and dangerous. Given the prolonged period the Supreme Court has taken to decide on this case, I fear they might deliver a ruling that aligns with this dangerous notion.”
He further emphasized that any decision short of affirming that a president is subject to the law like any other citizen would be unacceptable.
Trump and his legal team have argued that former presidents possess immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during their presidency.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision dates are set for Thursday and Friday, though it remains unclear which decisions will be announced on those days.
Many analysts and Trump critics are skeptical that the Court will uphold Trump’s immunity claim. Notably, conservative lawyer and frequent Trump critic George Conway stated on CNN last week his belief that Trump will “lose big” in this case. Conway asserted, “I trust the Court on this matter. I believe Donald Trump will lose. There might be some nuances in the opinion that add steps to the process, but ultimately, his argument is unlikely to succeed.”