The three judges of the Washington Court of Appeals, hearing the criminal immunity request of former president Donald Trump, expressed their suspicion that the defendants tried to illegally change the results of the law during the debate in the presence of the person concerned on Tuesday, January 9. 2020 election.

The favorite in Iowa's Nov. 15 Republican primaries has been trying through multiple appeals to delay his various criminal hearings as long as possible.

Donald Trump, who has expressed a desire to appear at the appeals court even though he is not required to appear, did not actually speak himself, and the hearing ended at 10:45 a.m. (3:45 p.m. GMT) after more than an hour of deliberations.

Judge Tanya Sudkan, who is presiding over his federal trial for illegal attempts to change the outcome of the 2020 election, on December 1 rejected the immunity request, noting that neither speech protected the former president against criminal prosecution.

«Allowing a president to be prosecuted for his official actions opens a can of worms that this country can never recover from.“, Donald Trump's lawyer John Sauer said Tuesday. He raised the possibility of indicting former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, respectively, for disinformation about weapons received by Iraq in 2003 and for killing jihadists through drone strikes.

“paradoxical”

Donald Trump's lawyers say he's happy.Absolute immunity» For his actions in the White House. They cite Supreme Court case law from the 1980s related to civil cases against former President Richard Nixon.

They also argue that he cannot be tried in the case because he was acquitted during the parliamentary impeachment proceedings against him for the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, during which hundreds of his supporters tried to block his certificate of victory. Democratic challenger Joe Biden.

When asked by one of the justices, Florence Bann, whether sending special forces to kill a political enemy or selling a presidential pardon fall under these official acts, John Sauer answered in the affirmative.

«It would be paradoxical to say that its constitutional duty to ensure loyal respect for laws authorizes the violation of criminal law.“, answered Karen Lecroft Henderson, president of the court.

«Never before have there been accusations that a president has tried to fundamentally undermine a democratic republic and the electoral system, with individuals using the levers of power.», James Pearce, a member of the special counsel Jack Smith's team investigating the case, pleaded for his role.

The Supreme Court is in reserve

In his ruling, Judge Sudken concluded that the Nixon precedent does not apply to criminal proceedings against a former president and that a criminal investigation cannot be dismissed.

But an appeal by his lawyers halted the proceedings, which Jack Smith worried could derail the trial's schedule, which was set to begin on March 4.

Donald Trump, who pleaded not guilty in the case on August 3, 2023 in Washington, blamed the legal problems on President Joe Biden's administration, paving the way for his 2020 revenge in 2024. December, the The Supreme Court rejected Jack Smith's request for an expedited ruling on the question, thereby short-circuiting the traditional appeals process and resulting delays.

But whatever the decision of the appellate court, the party who finds it wrong will appeal to the Supreme Court of the country. The Supreme Court's nine justices, six appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democratic presidents, must choose whether to engage in the political arena or, instead, discreetly withdraw.

Donald Trump has been sued by Georgia (Southeast) state courts for acts of election interference and must answer in federal court for negligent handling of classified documents after he left the White House.