Sixty-nine percent of New Hampshire Republicans and nearly a third of independents say Trump DOES deserve immunity as the former president holds a lead in the polls ahead of Tuesday’s election
An overwhelming majority of Republicans in New Hampshire support former President Donald Trump in his claim of absolute immunity from prosecution of presidents for their actions while in office.
The result, in a new Marist The poll comes as Trump has built a 14-point poll lead in New Hampshire, according to the RealClearPolitics average, and indicates voters are embracing at least some of his courtroom claims as they fend off four criminal cases.
Voters were asked, “Do you believe Donald Trump should enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he took during his presidency?”
Among Republicans, the number who answered yes was 69 percent. It wasn’t nearly as strong among independents, who can vote in the Republican Party’s primaries on Tuesday. Still, 29 percent of independents supported the idea, compared to 68 percent who opposed.
Among Democrats, only 5 percent were in favor, compared to 95 percent who opposed immunity.
Former President Donald Trump said presidents need total immunity from prosecution even if they “cross the line.” Otherwise, he said, it would lead to years of “trauma.” Voters in New Hampshire support the claim, a new poll shows
The outcome comes in a year when Trump’s legal defenses have overlapped with his political positions. On Thursday, with his defense likely to go to the Supreme Court but with the New Hampshire primary just days away, Trump issued an all-caps defense of “total immunity” for presidents. He likened the situation to fighting crime despite the occasional “rogue cop.”
It came as a judicial panel considered Trump’s objection to his prosecution on January 6.
Trump made the statement and analogy as a three-judge federal appeals court weighs his claim of “absolute” immunity from prosecution.
The former president left no doubt about where he stands on the issue as his lawyers fight the issue and likely postpone his scheduled March 4 trial in Washington, DC.
He wrote: “A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE COMPLETE IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO FUNCTION PROPERLY. ANY MISTAKE, EVEN IF WELL INTENTIONED, WOULD BE PRESENTED WITH AN ALMOST CERTAIN CHARGE BY THE OPPOSING PARTY AT THE END OF THE TERM. EVEN EVENTS THAT CROSS THE LINE MUST FALL BELOW TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL TAKE YEARS OF TRAUMA TO BRING GOOD FROM BAD.”
Trump called for “certainty” and then set an example.
“YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THE POLICE FROM DOING STRONG AND EFFECTIVE CRIME PREVENTION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO STAND AGAINST THE OCCASIONAL ‘BOUTIQUE COP’ OR ‘BAD APPLE.’ SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH “GREAT BUT SOMEWHAT IMPERFECT.” ALL PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE COMPLETE AND TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, OR OTHERWISE THE AUTHORITY AND DECISION-MAKING OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE STRIPPED AND FOREVER LOST. HOPE THIS WILL BE AN EASY DECISION. GOD BLESS THE SUPREME JUSTICE!’ He wrote.
His post on his Truth Social site comes after his lawyers were asked tough questions by judges in a Washington, DC, appeals court. Trump made the call after a big victory in Iowa, while leading the presidential primaries in Iowa, calling for “unity.”
“I think it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,” Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, a George W. Bush appointee, said at the hearing of January 9 about Trump’s immunity claim.
In a dramatic exchange during the 90-minute hearing, Judge Florence Pan asked Trump attorney John Sauer: “A yes or no question.” Can a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who has not been impeached, be subject to criminal charges?”
A lawyer for former President Donald Trump (right) faced a barrage of questions from a three-judge panel about his claims of presidential immunity — including whether he could use the military to kill a political rival
Trump attorney John Sauer responded, “If he was impeached and convicted first.”
“So your answer is no,” Pan shot back.
Trump has long defended police crackdowns. In 2017, he took aim at police practice of protecting the heads of suspects in custody as they were put into police cars. “You can take your hand off,” Trump said. “Please don’t be too nice.”
Trump’s blessing to the Supreme Court suggests his team is prepared for an adverse ruling. If the judicial panel rules against him, Trump could request an en banc review from the entire federal appeals court. If that court rules against him, he can seek relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.
It’s not just about the result, but also about the timing. Special Counsel Jack Smith sought an expedited review by the Supreme Court, finding Trump’s scheduled trial date linked to an alleged conspiracy to defraud the US and obstruct an official proceeding that threatens to fail and continues to clash with the primary process.