Trump suggests that, if re-elected, he would have Biden indicted

Former President Donald Trump on Monday suggested that if he is re-elected he would have President Joe Biden indicted, a day before an appeals court hears arguments on his claim that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution for his role in the Jan. 6 attack.

In a post to his Truth Social platform early Monday, Trump said he plans to attend oral arguments on his presidential immunity claim before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday, and claimed that it was his obligation as president to find voter fraud.

“Of course I was entitled, as President of the United States and Commander in Chief, to Immunity. I wasn’t campaigning, the Election was long over,” he wrote. “I was looking for voter fraud, and finding it, which is my obligation to do, and otherwise running running our Country.”

Trump then argued that, if his attempts to avoid prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election are unsuccessful, Biden shouldn’t be entitled to presidential immunity either.

“If I don’t get Immunity, then Crooked Joe Biden doesn’t get Immunity,” Trump wrote, before criticizing the Biden administration for the record number of migrants crossing into the U.S. southern border, its 2021 decision to pull troops from Afghanistan and baseless claims of Biden engaging in shady business practices with foreign countries.

“Joe would be ripe for Indictment. By weaponizing the DOJ against his Political Opponent, ME, Joe has opened a giant Pandora’s Box,” Trump wrote. “As President, I was protecting our Country, and doing a great job of doing so, just look around at the complete mess that Crooked Joe Biden has caused. The least I am entitled to is Presidential Immunity on Fake Biden Indictments!”

For Subscribers

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAbdul El-Sayed tries to woo MAHA voters as Democrats seek inroads with RFK’s supporters

FOR SUBSCRIBERSGOP super PAC increases its spending for Sen. Jon Husted in tough Ohio race

FOR SUBSCRIBERSKratom-like substances are popping up in a typically benign supplement

FOR SUBSCRIBERSRecords reveal tumultuous marriage between slain New York Times executive and wife

FOR SUBSCRIBERSFrom clean energy warrior to ‘wall of shame,’ James Talarico reverses on a fossil fuel money pledge

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCongressional staff planned official trip with luxury stops in Italy and France weeks before election

FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane

FOR SUBSCRIBERSOpenAI CEO Sam Altman to skip congressional hearing on rogue AI agents

FOR SUBSCRIBERSKey DOJ lawyers departed Trump ‘grand conspiracy’ probe amid pressure to produce, source says

FOR SUBSCRIBERSTrump’s new AI chatbot often links to a site launched under Clinton 26 years ago

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAt MAHA summit, industry CEOs the movement once vilified take the stage

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThis Paralympian has two goals: Win medals and give away $500,000 to her teammates

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCornell rape allegation spotlights stringent New York state laws that have long drawn criticism

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts

FOR SUBSCRIBERSDecades-old march dispute reignites in Northern Ireland, threatening political crisis

Trump has argued that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for any “official acts” conducted during their presidency. His lawyers have also argued that Trump shouldn’t be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results because the Senate previously impeached and acquitted him after an impeachment proceeding centered on those actions.

For Subscribers

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAbdul El-Sayed tries to woo MAHA voters as Democrats seek inroads with RFK’s supporters

FOR SUBSCRIBERSGOP super PAC increases its spending for Sen. Jon Husted in tough Ohio race

FOR SUBSCRIBERSKratom-like substances are popping up in a typically benign supplement

FOR SUBSCRIBERSRecords reveal tumultuous marriage between slain New York Times executive and wife

FOR SUBSCRIBERSFrom clean energy warrior to ‘wall of shame,’ James Talarico reverses on a fossil fuel money pledge

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCongressional staff planned official trip with luxury stops in Italy and France weeks before election

FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane

FOR SUBSCRIBERSOpenAI CEO Sam Altman to skip congressional hearing on rogue AI agents

FOR SUBSCRIBERSKey DOJ lawyers departed Trump ‘grand conspiracy’ probe amid pressure to produce, source says

FOR SUBSCRIBERSTrump’s new AI chatbot often links to a site launched under Clinton 26 years ago

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAt MAHA summit, industry CEOs the movement once vilified take the stage

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThis Paralympian has two goals: Win medals and give away $500,000 to her teammates

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCornell rape allegation spotlights stringent New York state laws that have long drawn criticism

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts

FOR SUBSCRIBERSDecades-old march dispute reignites in Northern Ireland, threatening political crisis

Washington-based U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over his federal election interference case, last month ruled against Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment on presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. 

Trump’s appeal of the decision has put the case on hold. Special counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to step in and decide the key question of whether Trump has immunity for his actions as president challenging his 2020 election loss before the appeals court weighed in, but the justices rejected his request, giving the green light for oral arguments at the appeals court.