A group of 19 former Republican lawmakers are warning the Supreme Court in an open letter published in The Bulwark to end former President Donald Trump's "immunity" gambit immediately, or create a disaster for the rule of law.
Among the signatories were former Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Steve Bartlett (R-TX), Barbara Comstock (R-VA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), David Jolly (R-FL), and Joe Walsh (R-IL).
"As former members of Congress, all of us Republicans, we dedicated ourselves to upholding this principle," they wrote. "And we are now deeply concerned that former President Donald Trump’s response to the ongoing criminal prosecutions against him are testing it — requiring the U.S. Supreme Court to act swiftly to meet the moment. In no case is this more true than in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In this case, the federal courts are confronted with Trump’s gambit to escape accountability altogether: assert an unprecedented claim of absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution and use the appellate process to delay the trial until after the November election."
Experts have broadly argued Trump has no leg to stand on in claiming that he is immune from being prosecuted for actions taken while in office — and these former Republican lawmakers urged the judiciary to get on with ruling as such.
ALSO READ: Overcoming the Fox News-Musk-Trump propaganda machine
"We recognize that the Supreme Court is now facing the prospect of multiple extraordinary cases involving the former president, including one raising critical questions about whether he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office again," they wrote. "This moment in our history demands that the Court rise to the occasion. If necessary, it can and should decide both questions — whether Trump may appear on the ballot in the upcoming election as well whether he is subject to criminal prosecution — as quickly as possible."
The went on: 'These are serious charges for any person to face. They are existential for our democracy when the defendant is asking voters to re-elect him to the presidency.
At the end of the day, they concluded, "As alumni of the legislative branch, we understand that it is the courts’ constitutional role to decide what the law is and whether or not Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution is correct. We are not persuaded that the argument has any basis in law or history, but whatever the answer, we urge the Supreme Court to proceed with haste so that Trump can be tried if need be, or released from the burdens of a trial if not."
