In his opening arguments before the Supreme Court, an attorney representing former President Donald Trump argued that prosecuting a president for official acts while in office is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.
The attorney contended that such prosecution is an innovation with no historical basis and goes against the constitutional structure of the country.
He raised hypothetical scenarios to illustrate his point, questioning whether past presidents like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden could have faced criminal charges for their official actions while in office.
The attorney emphasized that the answer to all these hypothetical questions is no, suggesting that prosecuting a sitting president for official acts would set a dangerous precedent.
The implications of the court's decision in this case were highlighted as extending beyond the immediate circumstances, potentially impacting future presidents and their ability to carry out official duties without fear of legal repercussions.
