Inside Special counsel Jack Smith filing appeal filing against Trump
In an extensive 82-page court document filed in D.C.’s federal court of appeals, Special Counsel Jack Smith strongly asserted that former President Donald Trump should not be shielded by “presidential immunity” in the criminal case related to the alleged 2020 election conspiracy.
This development follows a recent decision by an appeals court allowing a lawsuit initiated by a group of U.S. Capitol Police officers against Trump to proceed, rejecting the notion of absolute immunity in civil lawsuits.
The lawsuit specifically focuses on Trump’s purported involvement in the events surrounding the assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The upcoming oral arguments scheduled for January 9, 2024, at the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit are crucial in determining the trajectory of the case. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the proceedings, had earlier ruled against providing Trump with immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes committed during his tenure in the White House.
Special Counsel Smith’s attempt to expedite the case by urging the Supreme Court to bypass the appellate court was met with a denial last week, presenting a setback for the prosecution team. Trump’s legal representatives argued against expediting the case, contending that the special counsel sought a hasty decision without due consideration.
Trump currently faces four charges related to an alleged scheme to obstruct the peaceful transfer of presidential power following the 2020 election. In his extensive filing on Saturday, Smith argued against the notion of “presidential immunity” from criminal prosecution, emphasizing the potential dangers in cases where a former President is accused of criminal actions aimed at subverting the results of a presidential election.
The filing also underscored the broader implications of upholding “presidential immunity,” suggesting that such protection could extend to a President involved in accepting bribes or directing law enforcement to carry out unlawful actions against political adversaries. Smith warned against the scenario where a President could incite violence without recourse, highlighting the need for accountability even after a Senate acquittal in an impeachment trial.
The intricate legal arguments put forth by Smith seek to dismantle the idea of absolute immunity for a former President, emphasizing the importance of legal consequences for actions that go beyond the bounds of presidential authority.
