 |
| EFE |
Former U.S. President Donald Trump stated on Thursday that there is no case against him to disqualify him in the upcoming general elections in November, and that it is more of a case of Democratic election interference.
In a brief press conference held outside his residence in South Florida, the former president (2017-2021) made these remarks after the conclusion of the U.S. Supreme Court hearing, which will determine if he is disqualified from returning to the White House due to his role in the January 2021 Capitol riot.
It was not an insurrection, Trump said, adding that there were no firearms among the protesters who entered the Capitol, a claim that contrasts with the dangerous and deadly weapons that, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, at least 116 individuals charged for their involvement in the assault were carrying.
The former president boasted about his strong position in the polls, both in the Republican primary and in a potential face-off with the current U.S. President, Democrat Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection.
You're leading in the country by a lot, and everywhere you beat the person who is leading (Biden), the former president added from Mar-a-Lago, his residence in Palm Beach, stating that they want to prevent his candidacy.
I think it's pretty hard to do, but I leave it to the Supreme Court, he added.
Before the reporters, Trump expressed confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as in Chief Justice John Roberts, and stated that the arguments from his defense are strong.
At the same time, the former president defended presidential immunity, one of his lawyers' arguments, and stated that it is imperative.
If a president has no immunity, he really has no presidency, he emphasized.
In today's hearing, both the more progressive and the more conservative justices—including Roberts—expressed reservations about the national implications if the decision of the state of Colorado to remove Trump from the Republican primaries for his role in the Capitol riot is validated.
Many of them suggested in their remarks discomfort with the idea that individual states interpret the constitutional eligibility of a candidate for a national office.