Donald Trump spent Christmas Day telling his perceived enemies to “rot in hell.” The next day, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination told the man leading federal investigations into his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and withhold classified documents to “go to hell.”
Amid a frenzy of posts on his Truth Social account, Mr. Trump launched familiar attacks on special counsel Jack Smith, suggested his appointment was unconstitutional and reiterated his conspiracy theory that multiple criminal indictments and Legal proceedings against him are coordinated by his rival president. Joe Biden to keep him out of power.
“Biden’s Flunky, deranged Jack Smith should go to HELL,” Mr. Trump wrote on Tuesday.
The former president’s latest statement against the special prosecutor comes days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Mr. Smith’s request to expedite a hearing on whether Mr. Trump can invoke “l ‘presidential immunity’ as self-defense in his federal election conspiracy case.
This question of “immunity” will arise before the court of appeal, as expected.
But the nation’s highest court could soon weigh in on a completely different case, one that would question Mr. Trump’s eligibility to appear on the 2024 ballot in the state of Colorado or elsewhere.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers are expected to prepare to present their arguments to the nation’s highest court after a brutal state court ruling this month.
His legal team is seeking to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that made him ineligible for president under the text of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits candidates “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from exercising office. public functions.
The questions underscore the outsized role courts across the country are playing in Mr. Trump’s volatile 2024 campaign, which has called the 91 criminal charges, fraud lawsuits and sexual abuse and defamation claims against him ” electoral interference.”
His December 26 Truth Social post followed a Supreme Court filing from former Ronald Reagan-era Attorney General Edwin Meese, whose fallacious argument claimed the special prosecutor was illegally appointed.
Mr. Meese has also defended other Trump figures, like former deputy attorney general Jeffrey Clark, who is being sued in Georgia for his attempts to overturn the election results — charges Mr. Meese called “ major affront to federal supremacy.”
Meanwhile, a group of 24 Republican officials urged a federal appeals court to strike down Mr. Trump’s “immunity” defense.
“Former President Trump’s alleged attempts to usurp the presidency constitute a particularly weak argument for extending the doctrine of presidential immunity to a criminal matter,” they wrote earlier this month.
The group includes former officials from five Republican administrations as well as constitutionalists “and others who support a strong presidency.”
“The last thing presidential immunity should do is encourage presidents who lose re-election to engage in criminal behavior, through official acts or otherwise, as part of efforts to prevent the attribution of executive power…to their legally elected successors,” they wrote.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments on the “immunity” defense on January 9.
Gn En Hd