Special counsel Jack Smith has slammed Donald Trump’s claims that he is protected from prosecution throughout the 2020 election as a “license” for future presidents to break the law.
In an 82-page filing on Saturday, Smith blasted Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, which his legal team argued should invalidate his conspiracy and obstruction charges altogether, and warned that such precedent would give future presidents carte blanche to commit crimes.
“The presidency plays an important role in our constitutional system, but so does the principle of accountability for criminal actions—especially those that strike at the heart of the democratic process,” Smith’s team wrote.
“The defendant’s claim of blanket immunity threatens to license the President to commit crimes in order to remain in office. The founder does not intend and will never consider such a decision.”
Last week, Trump’s legal team presented its opening brief to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is set to convene a three-judge panel that will hold oral arguments in the case on January 9, 2024.
Trump’s lawyers made two main arguments. First, he enjoys “absolute immunity from prosecution for his official acts as President” and second “a President acquitted by the Senate cannot be impeached for the conduct of that acquittal.”
Jack Smith made a scathing post about the consequences of the court upholding Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim. AP
In his rebuttal, Smith pointed out that “both arguments also threaten to undermine democracy.”
Smith examines a string of precedents and legal theories to support his objection.
Perhaps most notably, he drew attention to former President Gerald Ford’s controversial unconditional pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974.
“There is no historical material to support the defendant’s claim of broad immunity, and the post-Presidential pardons received by President Nixon reflect the consensus view that former Presidents are subject to prosecution after leaving office,” Smith’s team asserted.
Donald Trump’s legal problems have proved to be political gold for him – at least in the Republican presidential primary. AFP via Getty Images
Smith’s team also rejected claims that Trump’s acquittal during the second impeachment for sedition barred him from criminal prosecution for that matter under “double jeopardy” — a clause in the Fifth Amendment that prevents individuals from being charged twice for the same crime.
“[The Impeachment Judgment Clause] does not make a conviction at a Senate trial a condition precedent to criminal prosecution, which serves a different function than impeachment and removal,” the filing said.
Technically, Trump was not charged with sedition by Smith in the four-count indictment related to his actions surrounding the Capitol riots and the 2020 election.
“The indictment alleges a different offense than the one at issue in his dismissal,” Smith’s team said.
The Department of Justice has charged hundreds of rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. AFP via Getty Images
The charges instead involved two counts of obstruction, one count of conspiracy against civil rights, and one count of conspiracy to defraud the US government.
Reiterating his views on the “sorrowful” implications of Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution, Smith provided some concrete examples of behavior that the future president might try to justify.
“A President who accepts bribes in exchange for directing government contracts favorable to payers; The President who ordered the Director of the FBI to plant evidence incriminating political enemies; a President who ordered the National Guard to kill his most prominent critics; or the President who sold nuclear secrets to a foreign enemy,” prosecutors wrote.
Donald Trump criticized Jack Smith on Christmas day. AFP via Getty Images
“In each of these scenarios, the President can insist that he is only implementing the law; or communicate with the Department of Justice.”
District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who oversaw Trump’s four-count indictment, previously sided with Smith’s team in immunity arguments.
He argued that the 45th president did not deserve a “free pass for life.” Chutkan also put “any further proceedings that would move this case toward trial” on hold amid an appeal of his decision.
Earlier this month, Smith’s team sought to leapfrog the appeals court by asking the Supreme Court to expedite the case to avoid any delay in Trump’s impeachment. But the high court rejected the offer.
The Supreme Court is likely to face several politically ambiguous cases involving Donald Trump ahead of the 2024 election. AP
The case before the appeals court is relatively new and examines an untested area of constitutional law. It will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Although largely unspecified, Smith’s team appears to be concerned that delaying the trial in the matter — previously scheduled for March 4, 2024 — could benefit Trump.
If he wins the 2024 election, he will enjoy several potential opportunities to drop the case against him altogether such as a potential pardon.
Trump faces a total of 91 criminal charges including four federal and state indictments. He has pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing in all of them.
Categories: Trending
Source: thtrangdai.edu.vn/en/
