Special counsel urges Judge to dismiss Trump's immunity claim in classified documents

Special counsel Jack Smith is strongly against former President Donald Trump’s broad assertion of presidential immunity in the criminal case involving classified documents. He is urging the judge to prevent Trump from appealing the issue in a way that would delay his trial.

In one of many legal filings submitted on Thursday afternoon, Smith’s office stated, "The immunity claim made by Trump lacks any merit and appears to be a strategic attempt to delay the proceedings."

Trump is accused of taking classified national defense documents from the White House after he left office and refusing to give them back to the government. He has said he did not do it.

In Florida, prosecutors have charged Trump with a crime. They said that the charges are not for anything he did while he was President, especially not something he did as part of his official duties.

Former President Donald Trump talks to attorney Susan Necheles during a pre-trial hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on February 15, 2024 in New York City.

Former President Donald Trump talks to attorney Susan Necheles during a pre-trial hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on February 15, 2024 in New York City.

Brendan McDermid/Pool/Getty Images

Related article

Smith’s office requested Judge Aileen Cannon to label Trump’s new immunity claim as “frivolous.” This would prevent the former president from appealing immediately and causing a delay in the trial. An immunity claim is a critical issue that, if appealed, could disrupt the trial process.

The timelines for Smith's two prosecutions have become a contentious issue leading up to the trial.

In Trump's federal case related to January 6, 2021, his claim of presidential immunity, mainly focused on his actions while in office, was not dismissed as frivolous by the courts. The case has been on hold for some time as the courts deliberate on this matter. Oral arguments are scheduled to take place on April 25 by the Supreme Court.

In response to Trump's arguments for dismissing the classified documents case, Smith addressed allegations of selective and vindictive prosecution as well as claims about the former president taking classified material to his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the White House. The special counsel's appointment was also challenged.

Cannon scheduled a hearing for March 14 and advised the parties to set aside a full day for arguments on two motions from the defendants regarding Trump's legal right to bring classified material to his Mar-a-Lago residence.

Smith disagreed with Trump's assertion that he is facing selective and vindictive prosecution, arguing that he is not being treated differently from others, such as President Joe Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence, who have also been accused of mishandling classified material.

Prosecutors stated that he has not found anyone else who has committed similar crimes and not faced prosecution.

Smith relied on Robert Hur's report about Biden's handling of classified information, but prosecutors argued that comparing the two investigations is not valid. Hur decided not to press charges against Biden last month.

The special counsel wrote that Trump is accused of trying to obstruct justice and prevent the return of classified documents, unlike Biden.

Smith mentioned that the arguments made by the ex-president do not meet the legal requirements to win the case, such as proving that prosecutors had a real dislike towards the defendant.

Instead, prosecutors said, the conduct at issue in the case made it so that “Trump ‘in effect selected [himself] for prosecution.’”

‘Personal’ records argument

Prosecutors argue that Trump's assertion that his handling of classified material is permitted under the Presidential Records Act is unfounded. They maintain that nothing in the federal law allows Trump to take and store classified material.

According to prosecutors, Trump's claim that he can convert highly sensitive government documents, with classification markings, into 'personal' records by removing them from the White House is inaccurate.

Former President Donald Trump attends an election-night watch party at Mar-a-Lago on March 5, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Former President Donald Trump attends an election-night watch party at Mar-a-Lago on March 5, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Related article

Trump has to deal with a divided party, legal issues, and financial challenges now that he has clinched the GOP nomination.

Trump's lawyers believe that he can label documents as "personal" and retain them legally once he leaves office as president. However, prosecutors have stated that the Presidential Records Act does not permit the President to transform official records into personal ones by simply taking them from the White House at the end of his term.

Once a president leaves office, the National Archives and Records Administration takes over all presidential records from their administration, as stated by the PRA. Personal records are defined in the PRA as items such as personal notes, materials related to private political associations, or materials exclusively tied to the president's election to the White House.

This story has been revised with new updates.

Editor's P/S:

The ongoing legal battle between Special Counsel Jack Smith and former President Donald Trump over Trump's assertion of presidential immunity in the classified documents case highlights the complex interplay between executive privilege and the rule of law. Smith's strong opposition to Trump's broad immunity claim and his efforts to prevent its use as a delaying tactic underscore the importance of holding former presidents accountable for their actions. The fact that Trump's immunity claim has been deemed frivolous further undermines his attempts to avoid prosecution.

The contrasting approaches taken by the courts in Trump's federal case related to January 6 and the classified documents case raise questions about the consistency of judicial interpretation of presidential immunity. While the former case has been put on hold pending the Supreme Court's decision on the immunity issue, the latter case is moving forward without such a delay. This discrepancy suggests that the courts may be applying different standards when it comes to Trump's claims of immunity, which could have implications for the future of presidential accountability. prosecution's emphasis on the Presidential Records Act and its limitations further strengthens their case against Trump's assertion that he could legally take and store classified material.