Associated Press
Special counsel Jack Smith’s team urged the Supreme Court on Monday night to reject former President Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with scheming to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The brief from prosecutors was submitted just over two weeks before the justices take up the legally untested question of whether an ex-President is shielded from criminal charges for official actions taken in the White House.
“A President’s alleged criminal scheme to use his official powers to overturn the presidential election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power frustrates core constitutional provisions that protect democracy,” they wrote.
The outcome of the April 25 arguments is expected to help determine whether Trump faces trial this year in a four-count indictment that accuses him of conspiring to block the peaceful transfer of power after losing the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden.
Trump has argued that former presidents enjoy immunity for official acts in office. Both the judge presiding over the case, Tanya Chutkan, and a three-judge federal appellate panel in Washington have forcefully rejected that claim.
The Supreme Court then said it would take up the question, injecting uncertainty into whether the case — one of four criminal prosecutions confronting Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for President — can reach trial before November’s election.
In their latest brief, Smith’s team rehashed many of the arguments that have prevailed in lower courts, pointedly noting that “federal criminal law applies to the president.”
“The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts,” Smith’s team wrote.
Prosecutors also said that even if the Supreme Court were to recognize some immunity for a president’s official acts, the justices should nonetheless permit the case to move forward because much of the indictment is centered on Trump’s private conduct.
Smith’s team suggested the court could reach a narrow determination that Trump, in this particular case, was not entitled to immunity without arriving at a broader conclusion that would apply to other cases.
“A holding that petitioner has no immunity from the alleged crimes would suffice to resolve this case, leaving potentially more difficult questions that might arise on different facts for decision if they are ever presented,” they said.
___
Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
6 comments
Michael K
April 9, 2024 at 8:12 am
No oner is above the law. No one.
Delay, delay, delay is simply skirting justice.
PeterH
April 9, 2024 at 11:19 am
In 2023 prosecutor Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution! The Supreme Court refused to act and to Trump’s delay advantage this issue was forced back to lower courts to stagnate. Now SCOTUS gets the ball a second time. Hopefully they will hear the arguments and make a quick decision so this case can go to trial without further litigation!
Tom
April 9, 2024 at 4:59 pm
It’s becoming pretty obvious these days that nobody wants to go down in history as someone who helped convict trump so they’re all trying to be as hands off as possible. Look at Judge Aileen Cannon – she is literally making a fool of herself daily in a case that’s pretty much a slam dunk. The swamp is alive and well.
John L
April 10, 2024 at 9:54 am
Why would Trumps cronies in the SC not give him total immunity? They already did his bidding by hearing this ludicrous case. The lower appeal court opinion was well written and stated that why would a president who is in charge of enforcing laws be allowed to break them. Open and shut case but the Sc wanted to stall the conspiracy Jan 6 case until after the election and did not fast track it in dec when they should have said no need to hear idiotic case.
John L
April 10, 2024 at 9:56 am
Maybe the case would not have been heard if we paid for Clarence Thomas sons tuition or a few trips to some cool vacation spots would have done the trick
Dont Say FLA
April 11, 2024 at 3:39 pm
We can only hope this SCOTUS declares absolute immunity for US Presidents while Biden is still in office. That way Biden can end Trump and end the SCOTUS and Biden would be acting absolutely within the law granting him total immunity. Then Biden can appoint new SCOTUS who can re-hear the absolute immunity case and say “Our predecessors made a grave error. VERY grave. Perhaps absolute immunity wasn’t such a great idea after all. You’d think they would have realized, but alas, they died trying.”
Comments are closed.