Special counsel Jack Smith denies Trump's immunity claim
Special Counsel Jack Smith opposes Trump's immunity claim, stating it could enable presidents to commit crimes to retain power
Jack Smith, the special counsel, countered former President Donald Trump's assertion of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution by stating that such a claim "threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office." This response comes in the midst of preparation for oral arguments before a US appeals court in Washington, DC, scheduled for January 9, in the federal election subversion case.
In the new filing, Smith stated that the defendant claims he cannot be held accountable for the charges of attempting to retain power through criminal means after losing the election, which they assert threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of the Republic. He also urged the Court to swiftly affirm and issue the mandate for the public and the defendant's interest in promptly resolving the case.
Trump is facing four charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstructing an official proceeding. The ex-president has entered a plea of not guilty.
The pre-trial proceedings in the federal election subversion case have been temporarily delayed as Trump appeals the district court judge's ruling that, as a former president, he does not have immunity for potential crimes committed while in office.
The trial was initially scheduled to begin in March.
In his filing Saturday, Smith warned that allowing a former president this kind of broad immunity poses extreme danger.
The implications of the defendant's broad immunity theory are alarming. According to this perspective, a court should consider a President's criminal actions immune from prosecution if they involve communication with a state official on a federal matter, a meeting with an Executive Branch member, or a statement on a public concern," the filing states.
"Under this approach, a President could claim immunity from criminal prosecution for accepting a bribe in exchange for directing a government contract, instructing the FBI Director to plant evidence on a political opponent, ordering the National Guard to kill critics, or selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary. In each of these cases, the President could argue that he was simply carrying out the law, speaking with the Department of Justice, exercising his powers as Commander-in-Chief, or engaging in foreign diplomacy," it continues.
