Holder told MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace that he didn't understand why they chose to hear the case at all
Former AG Eric Holder sounds alarm on possible 'absurd' and 'dangerous' SCOTUS ruling in Trump immunity case
Former Obama attorney general sounded the alarm on the Supreme Court issuing an "absurd" and "dangerous" ruling on Donald Trump's immunity claim during an interview with MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace.
Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said he was worried about the Supreme Court issuing a "dangerous" and "absurd" ruling in the Donald Trump immunity case.
"Anything less than a decision by the Supreme Court that says, ‘A president should be held to the laws, just like any other American citizen should be,’ anything other than that is absurd," Holder told MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace.
The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on Trump's immunity case. The former president claims that he is immune from prosecution in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case.
"A president can violate the American criminal law if he or she is doing something in their official capacity? That is an absurd and dangerous conclusion. And I’m worried, given the length of time that it has taken for the Supreme Court to decide this case, that something along those lines might come out of the Supreme Court," Holder continued.
Former AG Eric Holder joined MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace to weigh in on the Supreme Court and the Trump immunity case on Wednesday, June 19, 2024. (Screenshot/MSNBC)
The former attorney general questioned why the Supreme Court chose to hear the case.
"And I’m worried when Justice Kavanaugh said we have to ‘write for the ages.’ No, you don’t. You need to decide the case just in front of you on the basis of the facts and the law presented to you and if you do that, you’ll reach the same conclusion as the appellate court. That a president needs to be held accountable in the same way that any other American would be. Any result other than that is, I think, both absurd and extremely, extremely dangerous," Holder said.
Smith charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.
Those charges stemmed from Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election results, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE
The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on Trump's immunity case. The former president claims that he is immune from prosecution in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case. (Getty Images)
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August 2023.
The U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit considered Trump’s claim of presidential immunity from prosecution for his actions in office, including his alleged role in trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, and ultimately ruled against the former president.
"We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed," the court wrote in February.
Fox News' Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.
Hanna Panreck is an associate editor at Fox News.
