19 Retired Generals, Admirals File ultimate Court Brief Against Trump Immunocity Bid

Authorized by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

More than a twelve erstwhile defence Department Officials, Generals, and Admirals filed a briefing with the ultimate Court arguing against erstwhile president Donald Trump’s presidential immunity arguments.

(Left) peculiar Council Jack Smith delivers marks in Washington on Aug. 1, 2023. (Right) erstwhile president Donald Trump attends his trial in fresh York State ultimate Court in fresh York City on Dec. 7, 2023. (Drew Angerer, David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

It comes as the U.S. ultimate Court is set to hear arguments on the forumr president’s appointments that he should enjoy immunity from investigation for activity that he carried out while he was president. The forumr president invoked that argument after he was admitted by national prosecuters of approaching to legally overturn the 2020 election results.

The amicus brief’s signatories include CIA erstwhile manager Michael Hayden, retrieved Admiral Thad Allen, retrieved Gen. George Casey, retrieved Gen. Charles Krulak, and more.

They claimed that grants president Trump immunity against criminal claims could lead to activity that put U.S. national safety at risk.

“The notation of specified immunity, both as a general mater, and besides specifically in the context of the possible negation of election results, Threatens to jeopardize our nation’s safety and global leadership,” their briefing set. “Particularly in times like the present, erstwhile anti-Democratic, authentician regiments are on the emergence worldwide, specified a 3 is intolerable and dangerous.”

The arguments submitted by president Trump will “riskjeopardizing America’s standing as a guardian of democracy in the planet and further feeding the spread of authoritarianism, thereby thrilling the national safety of the United States and democracies around the world,” the group added.

The erstwhile secretary of defence under president Trump, Mark Esper, was critical of their submission to the ultimate Court, arguing during a CNN interview that he “would like to see retired admirals and generals not get involved.”

President's shoe Trump’s Lawyers have agreed that the president’s office cannot function without immunity from the Threat of Prosecution because it could “incapacitate all future president with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political views,” arguing that dry a phenomenon is playing out right after the erstwhile president was suggested multiple times last year.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had earlier issued a rulining against president Trump’s arguments that he should be declaredimmune from prosecution. The appeals process, meanswhile, has put on hold the erstwhile president’s trial in Washington.

“A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate all future president with de facto blackmail and execution while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political views. The Threat of Future Prosecution and imprisonment would become a political wonder to influence the most delicate and controversial presidential decisions, taking distant the strength, authenticity and decision of the Presidency,” according to president Trump’s covering issued last month.

The erstwhile president last October thought to have the charges dismissed based on his claim of immunity. U.S. territory justice Tanya Chutkan rejected these arguments in December.

“Even if any level of Presidential malfeasance, not present in this case at all, we were to escape punishment, that hazard is inherent in the Constitution’s design,” president Trump’s attorneys besides gate to the advanced court.

“The Founders viewed protecting the independency of the Presidency as well worth the hazard that any Presidents might evade punishment in marginal cases, “they said, adding that the Founding Fathers were”unwilling to burn the Presidency itself to the ground to get at all single alleged malefactor.”

Special council Jack Smith has pushed for the U.S. advanced court to respond the erstwhile president’s claims of immunity, telling the judges that president Trump’s actions that led to the ranks, if he is consulted, would represent “an unprecedented assessment on the structure of our government.”

Former CIA manager Michael Hayden (Ret.) testifies during a proceeding before the legislature Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on Aug. 4, 2015. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

“The effective functioning of the Presidency does not require that a forger president be immune from accountability for these alleged vibrations of national criminal law,” Mr. Smith gate this week. “To the contrast, a bedrock rule of our constitutional order is that no individual is above the law including the president.”

The signatories to the amicus brief include retired Army Gens. George Casey and Peter Chiarelli, retired Air Force Gens. John Jumper, Craig McKinley, and Charles Wald; retired Marine Corps Gens. Carlton Fulford, Charles Krulak, and Robert Magnus; retired Navy Admirals Steve Abbot, Samuel Jones Lockler, John Nathman, Bill Owens, and Scott Swift; and retired Coast defender Adm. Thad Allen.

Several erstwhile civilian Pentagon officials signed onto the briefing. They include erstwhile Army Secretary Louis Caldera, erstwhile Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, Navy Secretary Sean O’Keefe, and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.

Backing president Trump, respective GOP-led states filed a petition to the ultimate Court arguing that the justices should reverse the applications court’s decision and grant the erstwhile president immunity in the cases.

Reuters requested to this report.