Jack Smith urges Supreme Court to maintain momentum in Trump’s criminal trial
Special Counsel Jack Smith Urges Supreme Court to Deny Trump’s Bid to Halt Criminal Proceedings
Special counsel Jack Smith responded Wednesday to former President Donald Trump’s attempt to stop criminal proceedings against him and reverse an appeals court decision that denied him presidential immunity. Smith firmly stated that the Supreme Court must reject Trump’s efforts.
In a 40-page response to the high court, Smith emphasized that now that the court of appeals has unanimously rejected Trump’s immunity appeal, the burden is on him to justify any further delay while seeking discretionary review in the Supreme Court.
Trump met the deadline on Monday to appeal the ruling against his presidential immunity claims by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. His appeal was necessary to prevent the case from restarting under U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who lacks jurisdiction during the appeals process.
Smith argued that Trump’s emergency appeal fails for two reasons. Firstly, Trump cannot demonstrate a likelihood that the Supreme Court would reverse the judgment and uphold his claim of absolute immunity. Secondly, delaying the resolution of the criminal charges against Trump would cause significant harm to the government and the public, outweighing any equities he can assert to prevent further pre-trial proceedings.
The special counsel’s office also strongly criticized Trump’s “radical claim” that he cannot be prosecuted for actions he took as president unless he was previously impeached and convicted by Congress. Smith stated that accepting this claim would undermine democracy and the rule of law, especially in a case where a former president is accused of committing crimes to remain in office despite losing an election.
If the Supreme Court declines Trump’s request to pause proceedings, the pretrial proceedings will resume at the federal district court in Washington. The justices could also extend the delay while they hear arguments. Legal experts have suggested that the Supreme Court may not want to give the appeals court the final say in this dispute, even if they come to a similar conclusion regarding Trump’s presidential immunity argument.
Trump’s lawyer argued in his appeal that the case presents a novel and complex question regarding presidential immunity that warrants careful consideration by the Supreme Court. Depending on whether the justices decide to grant the case for oral argument, the trial could be pushed to the middle of the 2024 campaign or even beyond the election.
Trump’s attorneys have alleged partisan motivations behind Smith’s desire to hold a trial before Election Day, claiming that it reflects a desire to schedule the trial during the height of the election season. Smith has faced scrutiny for pushing for the case to be adjudicated ahead of the November election, with critics arguing that the rush to trial does not give the Trump legal team adequate time to prepare a defense.
The Supreme Court will likely decide in the coming days whether to take up the case and impose an additional delay on pretrial proceedings. At the same time, the justices are also considering a separate decision on whether to keep or remove Trump from Colorado’s primary election ballot, a case that could have significant implications for Trump’s eligibility on ballots across the country.
How has the idea of absolute immunity been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in the past?
And unprecedented” argument that a sitting president has absolute immunity from criminal investigation and prosecution. Smith argued that the U.S. Constitution does not grant such immunity, and that the idea of absolute immunity would undermine the rule of law and the principle that no one is above it.
Smith also pointed out that Trump’s claim of absolute immunity was rejected by multiple courts during his presidency, including by the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Nixon v. Fitzgerald and Clinton v. Jones. Therefore, there is no legal basis for Trump’s claim, and it should be rejected by the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, Smith emphasized that the criminal charges against Trump are serious and deserve to be resolved in a timely manner. The charges include obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and financial crimes, among others. Delaying the proceedings would undermine the administration of justice and potentially allow for the destruction of evidence or the fading of witnesses’ memories.
Smith concluded his response by urging the Supreme Court to deny Trump’s bid to halt the criminal proceedings. He argued that allowing Trump to delay and potentially escape accountability would set a dangerous precedent and erode public trust in the justice system.
It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear Trump’s appeal and consider his arguments for absolute immunity. If the court denies his appeal, the criminal proceedings will continue, and Trump will have to face the charges in a court of law like any other citizen.
This case poses a significant test to the independence and integrity of the U.S. justice system, as it raises important questions about the limits of presidential power and the accountability of public officials. The Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for the future of the presidency and the rule of law in the United States.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
