![]() ![]() “That straightforward conclusion would not, however, foreclose the possibility that a future prosecution could raise difficult questions implicating cognizable separation-of-powers concerns,” he added. “Because a former President does not have the sort of sweeping immunity the defendant advocates, the denial of his motion to dismiss should be affirmed, and this case should proceed to trial,” Smith wrote. In Saturday’s filing, Smith also rebutted Trump’s argument that criminal prosecution would amount to double jeopardy because he was acquitted by the Senate during impeachment proceedings. “That approach would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a President who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer a President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy a President who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics or a President who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, because in each of these scenarios, the President could assert that he was simply executing the laws or communicating with the Department of Justice or discharging his powers as Commander-in-Chief or engaging in foreign diplomacy,” it adds. In his view, a court should treat a President’s criminal conduct as immune from prosecution as long as it takes the form of correspondence with a state official about a matter in which there is a federal interest, a meeting with a member of the Executive Branch, or a statement on a matter of public concern,” the filing reads. “The implications of the defendant’s broad immunity theory are sobering. In his filing Saturday, Smith warned that allowing a former president this kind of broad immunity poses extreme danger. ![]() If the circuit moves quickly on these arguments - which the special counsel and the trial judge have said are not credible - it could potentially keep the Trump’s trial date as scheduled. The trial was initially scheduled to begin March 4 the former president’s lawyers have advocated repeatedly for the trial to take place after the 2024 presidential election in November, with Trump’s fight over the immunity claim underscoring those efforts. Pre-trial proceedings were temporarily put on hold in the federal election subversion case pending Trump’s appeal of the district court judge’s ruling that, as a former president, he is not entitled to immunity for potential crimes he committed while in office. The former president has pleaded not guilty. ![]() ![]() Trump faces four counts in the case, including conspiring to defraud the United States and to obstruct an official proceeding. “This Court should affirm and issue the mandate expeditiously to further the public’s - and the defendant’s - compelling interest in a prompt resolution of this case,” he added. “The defendant asserts (Br.1) that this prosecution ‘threatens … to shatter the very bedrock of our Republic.’ To the contrary: it is the defendant’s claim that he cannot be held to answer for the charges that he engaged in an unprecedented effort to retain power through criminal means, despite having lost the election, that threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of our Republic,” Smith wrote in the new filing. Smith’s response to Trump’s immunity claim in the federal election subversion case comes ahead of oral arguments before a US appeals court in Washington, DC, which are scheduled for January 9. Special counsel Jack Smith pushed back on former President Donald Trump’s claim that he should be cloaked with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, arguing in a new filing Saturday that the sweeping assertion “threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office.” ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |