Special counsel urges court to reject Trump’s immunity claim in election interference case
Department of Justice Special Counsel Rejects Trump’s Claim of Presidential Immunity
Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith filed an argument Saturday disputing former President Donald Trump’s claim that he has presidential immunity from prosecution in the 2020 election interference case.
Last weekend, Trump’s legal team asked the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to throw out the case, arguing that he could not be prosecuted if he was not impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for the same conduct.
Why 14th Amendment Effort to Oust Trump Could Backfire on Democrats
Smith rejected that idea in his response, arguing that granting Trump immunity in the case would set a dangerous precedent.
“The defendant asserts (Br.1) that this prosecution ‘threatens … to shatter the very bedrock of our Republic,’” Smith wrote in the filing. “To the contrary: it is the defendant’s claim that he cannot be held to answer for the charges that he engaged in an unprecedented effort to retain power through criminal means, despite having lost the election, that threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of our Republic.”
The special counsel asked the court, which is scheduled to hear oral arguments regarding the immunity dispute on Jan. 9, 2024, to “affirm and issue the mandate expeditiously to further the public’s—and the defendant’s—compelling interest in a prompt resolution of this case.”
Smith called the implications of Trump’s broad immunity theory sobering, laying out a number of hypothetical examples in which a president could be protected from criminal activity.
“In his view, a court should treat a President’s criminal conduct as immune from prosecution as long as it takes the form of correspondence with a state official about a matter in which there is a federal interest, a meeting with a member of the Executive Branch, or a statement on a matter of public concern,” Smith wrote.
“That approach would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a President who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer; a President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a President who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a President who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, because in each of these scenarios, the President could assert that he was simply executing the laws; or communicating with the Department of Justice; or discharging his powers as Commander-in-Chief; or engaging in foreign diplomacy.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Trump faces four charges in the third of his four criminal indictments: conspiracy to defraud the U.S., obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. He has pleaded not guilty to all of them.
The trial is scheduled to begin March 4, 2024.
According to Smith’s argument, why is it important to pursue criminal prosecution even if impeachment and conviction are not prerequisites?
R Republic.”
Smith’s argument is based on the concept that no one, including a sitting president, is above the law. He cites previous court cases, such as United States v. Nixon, that have established the principle that a president can be criminally prosecuted while in office.
In his response, Smith also refutes the idea that impeachment and conviction are prerequisites for prosecution. He argues that while impeachment is a political process, criminal prosecution is a separate matter governed by the legal system.
“The defendant’s argument conflates impeachment, conviction, and removal from office with criminal prosecution,” Smith wrote. “While impeachment and conviction may result in removal from office, they are not required for criminal prosecution, nor do they preclude it.”
Smith’s argument aligns with the position taken by the Department of Justice in previous cases. The Department has consistently maintained that the president does not have absolute immunity from criminal investigation or prosecution.
Trump’s claim of presidential immunity comes as part of his defense in a case where he is accused of soliciting election interference from foreign entities. The case alleges that Trump sought help from foreign governments to sabotage his opponent’s campaign in the 2020 presidential election.
Smith argues that the seriousness of the charges and the potential threat to democracy necessitate the pursuit of criminal prosecution. He emphasizes the importance of holding public officials accountable for their actions, regardless of their position of power.
“The case against the defendant involves allegations of significant misconduct that strike at the heart of our democracy,” Smith wrote. “Granting presidential immunity in this case would not only undermine the rule of law but also send a dangerous message that no one, not even the president, can be held accountable for their actions.”
The Department of Justice Special Counsel’s argument is likely to have significant implications for the case. While Trump’s legal team has sought to use presidential immunity as a defense, Smith’s response highlights the importance of upholding the principles of accountability and the rule of law.
As the case continues, the court will ultimately decide whether Trump is entitled to presidential immunity and whether he can be criminally prosecuted for his alleged involvement in election interference. As Smith concludes in his filing, the decision will have lasting implications for the democratic foundation of our Republic.
" 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
