Washington- Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday urged the Supreme Court to reject former President Donald Trump’s claim that he is entitled to full immunity from federal prosecution, arguing that the former president’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results “thwart key constitutional provisions that protect.” democracy.”
In a Supreme Court filing, Smith and his team of prosecutors argued that Trump was claiming “new and expanded immunity” from criminal laws that all citizens must follow, and said his alleged plan to thwart the transfer of presidential power was out. the duties of his office.
“No presidential power at issue in this case authorizes the President to invoke immunity from the broad federal criminal prohibitions that support the charges: fraud against the United States, obstruction of official proceedings, and denial of the right to vote,” they said. -they write. “The constitutional duty of the President to see that the laws are faithfully executed does not imply a general right to violate them.”
The special prosecutor told the justices that there are “layered safeguards” when a criminal case is initiated that “provide assurance that prosecutions will be reviewed under rigorous standards and that no president needs to be deterred from fulfilling his responsibilities by knowing that he is subject to legal action.” prosecution if he commits federal crimes.
He also argued that there was no evidence that Congress intended to exempt the president from federal criminal laws.
Smith’s filing lays out the arguments his office will make before the justices on April 25, when they meet to evaluate Trump’s attempt to end his federal prosecution in Washington, DC. Trump submitted his opening brief last month, in which he urged the Supreme Court to find that former presidents are entitled to broad protections from criminal prosecution for acts committed while in office.
“From 1789 to 2023, no president, former or current, has faced criminal charges for his official actions – for good reason,” Trump’s lawyers told the court in their brief. “The president cannot function, and the presidency itself cannot maintain its vital independence, if the president is subject to criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office.”
But in his court filing, the special counsel wrote that “federal criminal law applies to the president” and called Trump’s counterargument a “radical suggestion.”
“The lack of prosecution of former presidents until this case does not reflect the notion that presidents are exempt from criminal liability; rather, it highlights the unprecedented nature of the petitioner’s alleged conduct,” a- he argued.
In part, prosecutors wrote that even if the high court were to find that some immunity could be extended to a former president’s “official acts” while in office, it would not prevent prosecutions of Trump. According to Smith and his team, the allegations against Trump concern “a private scheme with private actors to achieve a private goal: petitioner’s efforts to stay in power through fraud.”
The special prosecutor told the court that an alleged plan to overturn the outcome of the presidential election is “the paradigmatic example of conduct that should not be immunized, even if other conduct should be.” .
The High Court considers a decision of a panel of three judges on the federal appeals court in Washington that ruled that Trump could be prosecuted for alleged attempts to thwart the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election. The former president was indicted last August on four counts linked to accusations that he acted illegally in order to remain in power, and he pleaded not guilty.
The trial before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was originally scheduled to begin last month, but proceedings were halted. on break since December as Trump appeals on immunity issue.
This is the first time the Supreme Court will consider whether a former president is exempt from criminal liability for allegedly illegal acts committed while in office. However, in the past, presidents have been found to be immune from civil suits arising from conduct within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties.
The question before the justices in the Trump case is “whether and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during of his mandate”.
Although the wording of the question indicates that the Supreme Court may not consider Trump’s argument that a former president can only be prosecuted if he is first impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate, Both Trump and Smith responded to this claim.
Smith told the court in his filing that the Constitution does not establish a rule requiring such action by Congress before a former president can be prosecuted.
“Adopting (Trump’s) position would frustrate the ordinary application of the criminal law simply because Congress, in administering the political process of impeachment, has not seen fit to impeach or convict,” the special prosecutor wrote.
Trump is the first former president to face criminal charges. The case in Washington is one of two cases brought by Smith — the second, in South Florida, involves Trump’s handling of sensitive government documents and his alleged obstruction of the investigation. Trump also faces two state-level lawsuits, in New York and Georgia. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges and claims the charges against him are politically motivated.
A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June, but the judges’ review of the case has been mentioned in his other lawsuits.
In the New York case, in which Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records, his lawyers asked a Manhattan judge to delay the start of his trial until the Supreme Court rules on whether he has presidential immunity. But the judge, refused the requestand the trial is expected to begin this month.
Trump also claimed that presidential immunity protects him prosecutions in the South Florida case, although the judge in that case has not yet ruled on the former president’s efforts to dismiss the charges against him on those grounds.
If the former president prevails in the Supreme Court and the justices rule that he is entitled to full immunity, that would end Smith’s trial in Washington. A ruling against Trump would allow the case to continue, although it is unclear whether a trial could take place before the November presidential election. Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential candidateand he’s about to take on President Biden again.
The High Court had been requested by Smith to intervene in the immunity dispute in December, but the judges refused to expedite the case. Their decision not to intervene at this point allowed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to decide the issue first.
A three-judge panel ruled unanimously in February, finding that Trump was not entitled to presidential immunity from federal prosecution for “allegedly official acts.”
“For purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump has become a Trump citizen, with all the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” Justices Karen LeCraft Henderson, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan wrote in their opinion.
Henderson was appointed to the DC Circuit by President George HW Bush, while Mr Biden appointed Childs and Pan to the appeals court.
The immunity case isn’t the only one the Supreme Court will hear this month that will have consequences for Trump. The justices will hear arguments on April 16 on the scope of a federal obstruction law which was used to indict numerous defendants for their alleged actions during the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump has been accused of violating the law, and the court’s decision could impact the validity of this and other accounts.
A decision in this case is also expected by the end of June.
Grub5
