Jack Smith Rejects Trump’s Immunity Claim in New Filing
Special counsel Jack Smith and his team filed a new brief on Saturday with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected Donald Trump’s claims that he’s immune from prosecution over his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election on the basis he was president at the time and that he was acquitted by the Senate following being impeached over his actions.
Special Counsel Rejects Trump's Immunity Claim
Special counsel Jack Smith and his team filed a new brief on Saturday with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected Donald Trump’s claims that he’s immune from prosecution over his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election on the basis he was president at the time and that he was acquitted by the Senate following being impeached over his actions.
In the 82-page filing, Smith argued that Trump's sweeping immunity claim threatens the constitutional framework and could allow presidents to commit crimes to remain in office, which is not what the Founders intended or would have allowed.
Trump had submitted a late-night filing to the D.C. Court of Appeals, arguing that he was merely doing his duty as commander-in-chief to allege that the election was rigged or stolen. However, Smith's brief countered that being president does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution, especially when it involves threats to the transfer of power.
No Blanket Immunity for Former Presidents
Smith argued in the new brief that there is no blanket immunity from criminal prosecution for the presidency, particularly for a former president charged with threats to the transfer of power. He stated that the indictment against Trump contains substantial allegations of a plot to overturn the election results that fall outside the perimeter of official Presidential responsibilities.
The brief also addressed the argument for post-presidential immunity, citing a Supreme Court decision in 1982 that granted civil immunity to the president for damages. However, it clarified that this ruling does not exempt a president from criminal liability, and emphasized the public interest in upholding the rule of law through federal prosecution.
In response to Trump's claim of double jeopardy due to his Senate acquittal, the brief pointed out that the district court had already denied both motions of presidential-immunity and double-jeopardy. The brief stated that the indictment charges different offenses than those considered in the impeachment proceedings.
Oral Arguments Scheduled for Jan. 9
A three-judge panel is set to hear oral arguments on January 9 regarding the matter of Trump's immunity claim. This comes after the Supreme Court denied Jack Smith's petition to expedite a ruling on whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution while in office.
The rejection by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals of Trump's immunity claim and the upcoming oral arguments make the arguments presented by both sides in this case unprecedented. Trump is facing four separate criminal indictments, making him the first former president in history to be charged with state or federal crimes.
As the legal proceedings continue, it remains to be seen how the courts will ultimately rule on the issue of immunity for a former president and the potential criminal liability that follows leaving office.
