In a recent legal filing, Special Counsel Jack Smith vehemently refuted former President Donald Trump's assertions of presidential immunity from prosecution related to the 2020 election.
Smith warned that such a precedent could potentially provide future presidents with unchecked power to commit crimes.
Smith's team submitted an 82-page document on Saturday, in which they dissected Trump's claims of immunity. Trump's legal team has previously argued that this immunity should nullify the conspiracy and obstruction charges against him.
"The Presidency plays a vital role in our constitutional system, but so does the principle of accountability for criminal actsparticularly those that strike at the heart of the democratic process," Smith's team wrote. They further cautioned that Trump's broad immunity claim could potentially "license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office," a scenario they believe the Founding Fathers would not have condoned.
Last week, Trump's lawyers presented their opening brief to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is scheduled to convene a three-judge panel for oral arguments in the case on January 9, 2024. The defense's argument hinges on two main points: Trump's "absolute immunity from prosecution for his official acts as President," and the assertion that "a President who is acquitted by the Senate cannot be prosecuted for the acquitted conduct."
Smith's team countered these arguments, warning that they could potentially undermine democracy. They cited several legal precedents and theories to support their rebuttal, including former President Gerald Ford's controversial pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974.
"No historical materials support the defendants broad immunity claim, and the post-Presidency pardon that President Nixon accepted reflects the consensus view that a former President is subject to prosecution after leaving office," Smith's team argued.
They also rejected the claim that Trump's acquittal during his second impeachment for incitement of insurrection protects him from criminal prosecution for the same offense under the "double jeopardy" clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Smith's indictment against Trump does not include charges of inciting an insurrection. Instead, it comprises two counts related to obstruction, one count of conspiracy against civil rights, and one count of conspiracy to defraud the US government.
Smith's team also highlighted the potential ramifications of Trump's immunity claims, providing hypothetical examples of actions future presidents might attempt to justify under such a precedent.
District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over Trump's case, has previously sided with Smith's team on the immunity issue. She argued that the 45th president is not entitled to a "lifelong get-out-of-jail-free pass."
Earlier this month, Smith's team attempted to expedite the case by bypassing the appeals court and taking it directly to the Supreme Court. However, their request was denied.
The case before the appeals court is unique and explores a largely uncharted area of constitutional law. It is highly likely that the case will eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Smith's team has expressed concern that delaying the trial originally scheduled for March 4, 2024 could potentially benefit Trump. If he wins the 2024 election, he could potentially use various legal avenues to dismiss the case against him, including a potential pardon.
Trump currently faces a total of 91 criminal counts across four federal and state indictments. He has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing in all cases.
Login