Jack Smith and his team shocked the former president by urging the Court of Appeals to reject claims Trump was protected by presidential immunity in a new filing hours before New Year’s Eve.
Prosecutors want to hold Trump accountable
The latest filing says that Trump’s claims that he cannot be held accountable due to immunity for alleged crimes while in Office “threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation” of the U.S. Additionally, Smith’s filing says Trump’s argument “threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office.”
More from Smith’s filing
The filing that, surprisingly came hours before the New Year, said, “This Court should affirm and issue the mandate expeditiously to further the public’s — and the defendant’s — compelling interest in a prompt resolution of this case.”
Defining presidency
The presidency “plays a vital role in our constitutional system, but so does the principle of accountability for criminal acts—particularly those that strike at the heart of the democratic process,” wrote Smith in the latest filing.
Sweeping immunity
“Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant’s sweeping immunity claim threatens to license presidents to commit crimes to remain in office. The founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result,” it further read.
Claims from Trump’s legal team
Trump’s lawyers said that the former president could not be criminally charged over alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 elections because the Senate acquitted him following Congress’ impeachment. Further, they asserted that Trump’s actions fall under his official duties.
Oral arguments are set for January 9
The D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed to hear oral arguments on January 9. The panel of three judges includes Circuit Judges Karen Henderson, J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan. Childs and Pan are Biden appointees, while George W. Bush appointed Henderson.
Getting the D.C. case back on track
The D.C. trial was set for March 4, but pretrial deadlines are on hold due to Trump’s team’s claims over presidential immunity. The Supreme Court rejected Smith’s request for a speedy ruling, leaving it up to the lower court before hearing the case, which will likely end up being decided by SCOTUS.
Smith’s “geared” filing
Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann called Smith’s filing “geared,” writing on X, “Smith slyly notes that Trump himself previously told the S Ct in a case where he sought (unsuccessfully) immunity from a state grand jury subpoena that he wd NOT be immune post-Presidency and wd not be thereafter ‘above the law.'”
Weismann’s observation
The former federal prosecutor noted, “Trump defense to the J6 impeachment charge was: the Senate has no jurisdiction as I am no longer in office. Trump defense to criminal charges is: I am immune since you did not convict me in the Senate impeachment trial.”
More observations
Conservative Never Trump lawyer George Conway commented on a post by former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, who wrote Trump’s argument “would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to … a President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy [or] a President who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics.”
George Conway’s response
Conway replied, “Also: ‘a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary,'” adding, “Interesting choice of hypotheticals.”
Vance on the future of the case
MSNBC’s Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor, said, “At stake is not only how long it takes the court to decide after they hear argument on January 9, after that, there is sort of a procedural, administrative step that the court does before it issues the mandate that makes that judgment final and it’s the issuance of the mandate that triggers Trump’s obligation to either let that decision from the court of appeal stand or seek an appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Timeline of the trial
Vance continued, “Now, the special counsel has asked the court to issue that mandate five days after they decide the case, which would force Trump to act quickly and decide whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court. I suspect he will. And that takes us, really, to where we started. Much of the question of the timeline here depends on the will of the Supreme Court to bring these issues to decision quickly..”
More from AllThingsFinance
Jack Smith urges Judge Aileen Cannon for a speedy trial in a classified documents case involving ex-President Trump: Jack Smith continues pushing Judge Cannon, reminding her that “the speedy trial clock” is ticking
Defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake advances while people compare her to Rudy Giuliani
Kari Lake loses First Amendment right to accuse Maricopa County recorder; Arizona Republic ponders if she’s channeling Rudy Giuliani in her sleep : Defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake advances while people compare her to Rudy Giuliani
More Democrats are flipping in a crucial swing state than Republicans
In Pennsylvania, a significant number of registered Democrats flipping is sending an unflattering signal to President Biden: More Democrats are flipping in a crucial swing state than Republicans
