Trump won’t commit to discouraging violence among his supporters

Donald Trump simply walked away when asked if he would discourage his followers from violence as he ended a press conference in Washington, DC after attending a hearing at the District’s US Court of Appeals.

“Will you tell your supporters now, no matter what, no violence?” a reporter asked Mr Trump as he left the briefing. The former president, whose second impeachment came after he was accused of inciting the January 6, 2021 insurrection, refused to answer and kept walking out of the room.

“I did absolutely nothing wrong, working for the country, and I worked very hard on voter fraud … And we found tremendous voter fraud. We have a list of it. … Determinative fraud,” Mr Trump told the press after the hearing detailing his legal team’s argument that he’s immune from prosecution in the election interference case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

“A president has to have immunity. The other thing is I did nothing wrong,” Mr Trump claimed.

Mr Trump was quickly criticised for not discouraging violence among his supporters.

Alex Zeldin, a columnist for The Forward, wrote on X: “Trump will burn everything down in the name of keeping himself out of prison. That’s why he’s running. That’s why he won’t say no violence.”

Former GOP Congressman Joe Walsh wrote: “Trump has always wanted there to be violence committed in his defense. He wanted violence on January 6th, and he’ll want violence again this year.”

Anti-gun violence advocate Fred Guttenberg added: “As my friend @WalshFreedom knows, I never thought Trump would run. I lost a bet with Joe over it. I also said to him 2 years ago that if he does run, it will be a hedge against his criminal exposure and he will incite violence to stay out of prison. Of course he won’t answer.”

Newsletter writer John Stoehr said, “Violence and the threat of violence are probably why he’s the frontrunner”.

Writer Michael Freeman noted that “He was thrilled that his mobs ransacked the Capitol for him and, if he loses, it’s not going to bother him if they do it again”.

“Of course, I was entitled, as President of the United States and Commander in Chief, to Immunity,” Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social after the immunity hearing he hopes will end the January 6 case against him. “I wasn’t campaigning, the Election was long over. I was looking for voter fraud.”

Mr Trump appeared in front of a panel of three judges – Michelle Childs, Karen LeCraft Henderson, and Florence Pan.

The judges pressed Mr Trump’s lawyer John Sauer on the claim pushed by the former president’s legal team that he’s covered by the “right not to be tried” for actions during his presidency – pushing for examples of precedent including explicit mentions that a president is immune.

Mr Sauer argued that President George W Bush hadn’t been charged with obstruction of justice after falsely leading the country into the Iraq war on false pretences and asked if President Barack Obama should be charged with murder for civilians killed in drone strikes.

He added that there was no prosecution of President Bill Clinton after he pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive whose ex-wife made large contributions to the Clinton Presidential Center and the Senate campaign of then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

The argument of the Trump team appeared to hinge on the impeachment clause.

Mr Sauer repeatedly argued that Mr Trump would only be subject to prosecution if he had been impeached and convicted by Congress, something he narrowly escaped twice after being acquitted with the help of Senate Republicans.

By that standards, Judge Pan in particular pressed for a yes or no answer from Mr Sauer on if a Senate conviction is a requirement for Mr Trump to be prosecuted, something Mr Sauer appeared unwilling to give a one-word answer to.

The judges and the government prosecutors put forward the examples of a president ordering the Navy SEALs to kill a political rival or a critic, selling pardons or military secrets, and simply resigning before being impeached – would such a president be immune from prosecution?

Judge Pan noted that the impeachment clause narrowed the issue since Mr Sauer agreed that a president could be prosecuted following a conviction by Congress – meaning that a president’s immunity is not absolute.

“All your other arguments fall away” if you concede that a president can be prosecuted, Judge Pan told Mr Sauer.

Mr Sauer cited on several occasions the worry of the founding fathers of criminal prosecution being used to crush a presidency.

Pointing to Mr Trump and raising his voice, Mr Sauer claimed that President Joe Biden was prosecuting his top political rival, despite there being no evidence that Mr Biden has given any directions to the Department of Justice regarding his predecessor.

“If a president has to look over his shoulder every time he has to make a controversial decision, worrying about ‘this could send me to jail when my opponent comes into office’ – that damages the presidency,” he added.

Speaking for the Department of Justice, lawyer James Pearce argued that Mr Trump is attempting to claim that his presidential immunity extends beyond his time in office, noting that in the 1974 case of US v Nixon, the court held that a president doesn’t have executive privilege in immunity from subpoenas or other actions by civil courts.

“At least since Watergate, it has been accepted that former presidents are subject to prosecution,” Mr Pearce said.

He pushed back against the notion shared by the Trump legal team that the prosecutions of Mr Trump open the “floodgates” of political prosecutions, noting that the probes into Mr Clinton did not lead to charges and that the investigations into Mr Trump did lead to charges does not mean that we’ll have a future of “tit-for-tat” prosecutions.

In his closing statement, Mr Sauer argued once again that the Trump prosecutions will open the “floodgates”. Ironically, it’s his client who has promised to make that future reality when he previously suggested that if he returns to the White House, he may have Mr Biden indicted.

At the press conference after the hearing, Trump lawyer John Lauro appeared to contradict the legal team’s immunity argument when he said, “Joe Biden could be prosecuted for trying to stop this man from becoming the next president of the United States”.