[ad_1]
WASHINGTON (AP) – Special counsel Jack Smith’s team told the Supreme Court Monday night that he is not the one prosecuting the case charging former President Donald Trump with conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. They requested that his claim that he be exempt from the crime be dismissed.
The brief from prosecutors was filed just over two weeks before a judge is set to take up the legally untested question of whether the former president is immune from criminal charges for official actions taken in the White House.
The full text of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s brief to the Supreme Court can be found here.
“The President’s alleged criminal plan to use public authority to overturn a presidential election and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power undermines the Constitution’s core provisions that protect our democracy,” they wrote. There is.
The outcome of the April 25 arguments will determine whether Trump will stand trial this year on four counts of conspiring to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after losing the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden. It is expected that this will be useful in determining the
Trump argued that former presidents enjoy immunity for their official actions while in office. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, and a three-judge federal appeals panel in Washington both forcefully rejected that argument.
The Supreme Court then announced it would take up the issue, asking whether the case, one of four criminal charges facing Republican presidential candidate Trump, could go to trial before the November election. It’s not clear at all.
In its latest brief, Smith’s team rehashed many of the arguments that have prevailed in lower courts, pointing out sharply that “federal criminal law applies to the president.”
“The Framers never supported impunity for former presidents, knowing that every president since the nation’s founding to the modern day would face potential criminal liability for their acts in office after leaving office. ” Smith’s team wrote.
Prosecutors also said that even if the Supreme Court granted certain immunity for the president’s official actions, the justices would still be reluctant to proceed with the case because much of the indictment focuses on Trump’s private conduct. He said it should be allowed to proceed.
Mr. Smith’s team suggested that the court could reach a narrow finding that Mr. Trump is not entitled to immunity in this particular case, without reaching a broader conclusion that would apply to other cases. .
“While a holding that the petitioner is not immune from a criminal charge is sufficient to resolve this case, when other facts are presented, a more difficult question arises on which to decide.” “Possible,” they said.
[ad_2]
Source link
