Adam Schiff Slams Trump’s Claim Of Legal Immunity As Out Of Step With America


Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, was among those condemning this week the claims from former President Donald Trump that he should have wide-ranging legal protections from even the possibility of a wide range of courtroom consequences merely by virtue of once serving as president.

Trump is attempting to use that legal argument to shut down a criminal case against him alleging attempted election interference following the 2020 presidential race, and arguments on the dispute before the U.S. Supreme Court are slated for coming days. Trump’s underlying criminal case was put on hold throughout all of these appeals, delaying the trial.

Trump has repeatedly taken his insistence on immunity to the public, writing recently on his knock-off social media site Truth Social of what would supposedly happen without his immunity claims’ acceptance: “The Presidency will be consumed by the other Branches of Government. THAT IS NOT WHAT OUR FOUNDERS WANTED!”

“The Founders did not want “a man unprincipled in private life,” “desperate in his fortune,” “despotic in his ordinary demeanor,” Someone who scoffs at “the principles of liberty,” and “falls in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day.” In short, they did not want you,” Schiff, who is currently running for Senate in his home state of California, wrote on X (formerly Twitter).

Metrics for viewership on the site said the post was viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Schiff seems likely to become the next Senator from California considering the state’s Democratic lean and the expected participation in the general election of a single pick from each major political party. (California’s primary system means that’s not a given.)

Trump’s vision for the presidency has been widely decried as authoritarian and out-of-step with the basic principles that should fuel the handling of government. Prosecutors said that Trump’s arguments could put presidents out of reach of very basic laws. “Petitioner suggests that unless a criminal statute expressly names the President, the statute does not apply. That radical suggestion, which would free the President from virtually all criminal law—even crimes such as bribery, murder, treason, and sedition—is unfounded,” the government said in court.