'Alarming' vs 'narrow': Senate split on Supreme Court presidential immunity decision

WASHINGTON − Former Justice Department officials clashed Tuesday at a Senate hearing over the Supreme Court decision that presumptively shielded former President Donald Trump from some criminal charges , with some calling the ruling "profoundly wrong" and "alarming," while a former attorney general described it as "narrow" and consistent with previous rulings.

The polarized reaction to the decision came as a federal judge begins to weigh whether Trump will face any charges he tried to steal the 2020 election in light of the ruling. Prosecutors are scheduled to file their first arguments defending the charges Thursday.

Philip Lacovara, former deputy solicitor general and former counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor, told the Senate Judiciary Committee the court couldn’t find any text in the Constitution or historical practice to support its ruling. In contrast, the Constitution recognizes criminal prosecution is possible in addition to impeachment, he said.

“The decision is profoundly wrong and it is profoundly dangerous,” Lacovara said.

Mary McCord, executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law School, said immunizing presidents for acts dealing with executive agencies could open the door to presidents having the FBI or IRS investigate their political enemies without any legitimate reason or for using the CIA for domestic operations.

“The potential abuses of official power that are made possible by the court’s ruling and the neutering of Congress’s ability to act are alarming,” McCord said. "The reforms enacted by Congress in the wake of past abuses would be impotent in the face of presidents unconcerned about adhering to the rule of law."

But Michael Mukasey, former attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, said the decision was “narrow, consistent with precedent and constitutional principles.” He cited previous court rulings including one from the 1982 Supreme Court decision that granted presidents immunity from civil lawsuits, but warned the president's power would be curbed if he or she feared eventual prosecution.

“The presidency would be whittled away by concerns by about possible future consequences” without some immunity, Mukasey said.

Trump charges hinge on Supreme Court decision

Trump, the first former president to face criminal charges, argued he is immune from prosecution for his actions while in office. He has been convicted in New York of falsifying business records to pay hush money to an adult film actress. He still faces charges in Georgia and at the federal level alleging he tried to steal the 2020 election. He's trying to get all three cases thrown out.

In an appeal of the federal charges, the Supreme Court ruled July 1 that former presidents are shielded from criminal charges for core functions of the job, such as vetoes or pardons; presumptively protected from charges for official actions; and not protected for private actions.

The decision led Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith to secure an updated indictment against Trump on charges he tried to steal the 2020 election. The four charges remained the same, but the indictment dropped accusations describing Trump ordering Justice Department to investigate false claims of election fraud because a president dealing with an executive department falls under official duties.

Trump has argued the rest of the indictment should be dismissed. Smith is fighting to continue the case, basically arguing that Trump's electioneering activity to remain in office was private rather than part of his official duties.

Smith is scheduled to file detailed arguments to keep the case alive by Thursday. Trump will have until Oct. 17 to reply.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan will then have to decide whether to dismiss any or all of the charges.

Senators polarized over meaning of Supreme Court ruling

The chairman, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called the decision “a game-changing act of judicial fiat that puts all future presidents above the law, protecting them from criminal prosecution for abusing the authority given them for personal or political gain.”

“The Department of Justice could now stand as a weapon to be wielded as a weapon by a corrupt president against his opponents,” Durbin said. “Any sitting president could hide behind their office for the most egregious forms of wrongdoing.”

But the top Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said said Republicans view the criminal charges against Trump in New York, Georgia and the federal level as “politically motivated garbage.”

“They’ve opened up Pandora’s box,” Graham said.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 'Alarming' vs 'narrow': Senate split on Supreme Court presidential immunity decision