[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – No president before Donald Trump has suggested the Constitution grants him immunity from criminal charges, and the Supreme Court should not recognize that now, Special Counsel Jack Smith said Monday.
Smith will make his case in a landmark case to be argued later this month, saying in a legal brief to the Supreme Court that granting Trump immunity would set a fundamental precedent. Ta.
Smith cited historical examples that have brought the United States to the brink of constitutional crisis, noting that President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon precisely because he could have otherwise been prosecuted. he pointed out.
Similarly, he claimed that the special counsel who investigated the Iran-Contra affair considered whether President Ronald Reagan’s actions were criminal.
“The new recognition now weighs heavily that throughout our nation’s history no such claim of absolute immunity has existed,” Smith said in a prepared statement. The lawsuit was filed ahead of April 25 oral arguments at the Supreme Court, where Trump is appealing the wrongful conviction. He is immune from prosecution.
Preparing to vote: See who’s running for president and compare their positions on important issues with our voter guide
Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss federal charges of trying to steal the 2020 election, arguing that criminal charges pose a “deadly threat” to the independence of the presidency. They hope the charges will be dismissed.
Trump’s lawyers said in a key briefing before oral arguments last month that if the president were to be criminally prosecuted for his official conduct after leaving office, he would be unable to function and the office itself would be unable to maintain its important independence. ” he said in court. They will have a chance to respond to Mr Smith’s claims in final legal submissions before facing nine Supreme Court justices.
Three of the nine justices were appointed by President Trump when he was president, giving the court a conservative majority of six Republican appointees.
Supreme Court may not rule quickly on Trump case
Even if Trump loses his appeal, the Supreme Court may not rule quickly enough to proceed with the case in time for a verdict before the November election.
Mr. Trump presented the court with the option of further delaying the trial.
For example, if a judge decides that immunity for acts committed while in office requires a fact-based approach (e.g., if Mr. (e.g., whether the defendant acted in the same way), the case should be sent back to the lower court. His lawyers argued that the court was obligated to make that decision, “including conducting the necessary fact-finding process before proceeding further in the case.”
Trump’s attempt to use fake electors and a high-pressure phone call in which he pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” 11,780 votes were part of his official duties as president. You will have to convince the court of this. But no matter what the appeals court rules, the exercise will still delay his trial in the federal election case.
more:Donald Trump loses bid to postpone Manhattan hush money trial pending change of location request
Mr. Smith countered on Monday that Mr. Trump’s trial should not be postponed.
Smith said that even if the Supreme Court found that the former president had some form of immunity that could apply to the charges against Trump, district courts would base their decisions on the evidence and give jurors appropriate guidance. Said that instructions can be created. President Trump may appeal these rulings, but only after the trial is over.
Smith also said that trying to overturn an election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power is “a classic example of conduct that should not be excused, even if other actions should be exempt.” Therefore, the immunity enjoyed by former presidents for official actions does not apply to President Trump. ”
President Trump has pleaded not guilty to four federal charges (three charges of conspiracy and one charge of obstruction) for falsely claiming election fraud and attempting to overturn legitimate election results in a Supreme Court case. Ta.
President Trump has repeatedly insisted that the charges are politically motivated. If he returns to the White House, he could appoint an attorney general who would seek to dismiss pending federal charges. President Trump could also pardon himself, but there is debate over his authority to do so.
But while Trump’s preferred outcome would be for the Supreme Court to dismiss the charges entirely, experts say that is unlikely.
Former presidents have broad immunity from civil lawsuits for official actions they took while in the White House, but President Trump is seeking to assert blanket immunity from criminal prosecution.
“A fundamental principle of our constitutional order is that no one, including the president, is above the law,” Smith told the court.
“There is nothing in the constitutional text, history, case law, or policy considerations that support the absolute immunity petitioners seek,” Smith said.
[ad_2]
Source link
