Special Prosecutor Jack Smith Calls on Supreme Court to Dismiss Trump's Immunity Claims

Special counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to dismiss Donald Trump's claims of broad immunity and to prevent any delays in the trial for allegedly trying to undermine the 2020 election results.

Smith explained to the court that Trump's argument is not supported by the Constitution, American history, or the common belief that presidents should be held accountable under the law.

Smith informed the court that the Framers of the Constitution never supported the idea of granting criminal immunity to a former President. Throughout history, all Presidents, from the Founding Fathers to the modern era, have understood that once they leave office, they could still be held accountable for any criminal actions they took while in office.

The filing by Smith has become a highly anticipated case in the current term of the Supreme Court. A ruling in favor of Trump could not only affect the special counsel's investigation into election interference, but also impact numerous other criminal charges that are currently pending against him.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on April 25, and a decision is anticipated by July. Trump is expected to submit his written reply to Smith next week.

Last month, Trump submitted his own written arguments, stating that if the court declined to grant him immunity, future presidents could be susceptible to "de facto blackmail and extortion while in office." He also mentioned that past presidents could have faced charges for various controversial actions they took during their time in office.

Smith disagreed with that argument in his most recent document.

In his statement on Monday, Smith stated, "The presidency can still operate effectively even if a former president is held accountable for breaking federal criminal laws. In fact, it is a fundamental principle of our Constitution that everyone, including the president, is subject to the law."

This story is breaking and will be updated.

Editor's P/S:

The Supreme Court's upcoming hearing on Donald Trump's claims of immunity has significant implications for both the special counsel's investigation into election interference and the future of presidential accountability. Special Counsel Jack Smith's argument that Trump is not immune from prosecution is supported by the Constitution, history, and the principle of equal justice under the law. Trump's counterargument, that granting immunity would protect future presidents from "blackmail and extortion," is unfounded and ignores the fact that presidents are not above the law.

The Supreme Court's decision will have a major impact on the course of Trump's various legal challenges. A ruling in favor of Smith would allow the special counsel to proceed with his investigation without delay. Conversely, a ruling in favor of Trump could not only derail the election interference probe but also set a dangerous precedent for future presidents. It is crucial that the Court upholds the principle of presidential accountability and ensures that no one is above the law.