In his defense of presidential immunity, former President Donald Trump's attorney Will Scharf told Fox News' Martha MacCallum on Thursday afternoon that he is "excited" for the Supreme Court to make a ruling following the two sides' morning oral arguments.
The debates we had this morning seemed to go extremely nicely. At the beginning of his discussion with MacCallum, Scharf said, "And the reason I say that is mainly because it was evident that the justices were extremely worried about the future of the presidency and the office of the president in the United States." "If they did not provide a legal defense against the same kinds of political cases that are now being made against President Trump. The justices' careful consideration of these fundamental constitutional issues gave us hope, and we are eager to hear their decision—likely before the term ends at the end of June.
Afterwards, Scharf remarked that "the justices were deeply skeptical" of the notion that presidents may be prosecuted for crimes pertaining to their "core presidential responsibilities."
"We believe that the Supreme Court's decision today largely vindicates our arguments," he said.
When asked before the interview ended what she thought would happen in the case, Scharf said, "It seems that the Supreme Court wants to ensure that the system we end up with is a system that preserves presidential prerogatives, that preserves the ability of the president to respond decisively to the situations that arise during a presidency." We believe that in the end, this will work in our advantage in the dispute with the special counsel.
The "most natural course would be a remand back to the lower courts for further fact finding and decision making to implement that scope of immunity," he said, "if any scope of immunity is recognized." A ruling of that kind would probably cause a delay in Special Counsel Jack Smith's 2020 election case, and would even imply its termination if Trump were to win the president.
The debates we had this morning seemed to go extremely nicely. At the beginning of his discussion with MacCallum, Scharf said, "And the reason I say that is mainly because it was evident that the justices were extremely worried about the future of the presidency and the office of the president in the United States." "If they did not provide a legal defense against the same kinds of political cases that are now being made against President Trump. The justices' careful consideration of these fundamental constitutional issues gave us hope, and we are eager to hear their decision—likely before the term ends at the end of June.
Afterwards, Scharf remarked that "the justices were deeply skeptical" of the notion that presidents may be prosecuted for crimes pertaining to their "core presidential responsibilities."
"We believe that the Supreme Court's decision today largely vindicates our arguments," he said.
When asked before the interview ended what she thought would happen in the case, Scharf said, "It seems that the Supreme Court wants to ensure that the system we end up with is a system that preserves presidential prerogatives, that preserves the ability of the president to respond decisively to the situations that arise during a presidency." We believe that in the end, this will work in our advantage in the dispute with the special counsel.
The "most natural course would be a remand back to the lower courts for further fact finding and decision making to implement that scope of immunity," he said, "if any scope of immunity is recognized." A ruling of that kind would probably cause a delay in Special Counsel Jack Smith's 2020 election case, and would even imply its termination if Trump were to win the president.
