Special Counsel Jack Smith has submitted a plea to the Supreme Court, requesting that the court reject Donald Trump’s assertions of broad immunity and refuse to give the former president any opportunity to postpone a trial regarding charges that he attempted to harm the outcome of the 2020 election.
According to the testimony provided by Smith, the position taken by Trump is not supported by the Constitution, the historical context of the nation, or the popular notion that presidents are not exempt from the law. Smith said that even if the Supreme Court decides that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity, it is still possible that Trump’s private acts, which were separate from his official obligations, could be vulnerable to prosecution.
The idea of providing immunity from criminal prosecution to a former President was never embraced by the people who drafted the Constitution. All presidents throughout history, from the time of the Founding Fathers to the current day, have been aware that if they leave office, they could be held legally liable for any criminal activities they committed while they were in office, according to Smith’s statement before the court.
During the current term of the Supreme Court, the case that has received the greatest attention and scrutiny is considered to be Smith’s submission. A wide verdict in favor of Trump could potentially damage not only the case of election subversion that the special counsel is pursuing against him, but also a variety of other criminal claims that are still pending against him.
The arguments are expected to be heard by the Supreme Court on April 25th, and it is anticipated that a decision will be reached by the end of July. Within the next week, Trump is required to present Smith with a written response to his question.
Smith made an effort to refute Trump’s contention that if there is a limited kind of legal protection for former presidents, then it would be necessary for lower courts to investigate the ways in which that protection could be applicable to Trump’s circumstances. In the event if the majority of the justices decided to pursue that particular course of action, it has the potential to result in a significant delay in the procedures of the trial.
On the other hand, the special counsel argued that a considerable proportion of Trump’s actions were associated with his personal life. As far as he is concerned, the Constitution does not confer upon the President the authority to validate the election of their successor. According to Smith, the activities of Trump were implemented as part of a covert plot that involved persons who were not affiliated with the government in order to unlawfully maintain power.
During the month of January, President Trump made his own initial written arguments, in which he asserted that future presidents would be vulnerable to “de facto blackmail and extortion while in office” if the court did not provide him protection. In his opinion, prior presidents might have been subject to criminal prosecution for a variety of controversial actions that they carried out while they were in office.
It was in his most recent brief that Smith argued against such viewpoint.
“The proper operation of the presidency does not necessitate that a former president be exempt from being held responsible for these purported breaches of federal criminal law,” Smith said in an interview on Monday. “Contrarily, a fundamental principle of our constitutional system is that no individual, including the president, is exempt from the law.”
In his previous submission, the potential candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2024 had suggested an alternative strategy for the justices. This strategy would help him achieve the political goal of delaying a trial until after the election in November, in the event that they were not inclined to adopt his extreme idea of presidential immunity.
Because of this circumstance, the court has the authority to send the case back to subordinate courts for further proceedings to be carried out. Because the purpose of this action is to determine whether or not any type of limited legal protection would be available in his particular case, the trial would be delayed for a number of months thanks to this action.
Smith, on the other hand, appeared to be very eager about avoiding that outcome in court. On the other hand, he indicated that a trial might begin explicitly probing Trump’s personal conduct if the Supreme Court arrives at the conclusion that past presidents are afforded a certain level of legal protection.
“Although the court may be inclined to acknowledge some form of legal protection for the official actions of a former president, it should send the case back for trial because the indictment claims that the petitioner engaged in significant personal actions to further their own private goals,” Smith reported to the United States Supreme Court.
According to the statement made by the special counsel, the exploitation of Trump’s official power was merely an additional technique of fulfilling Trump’s personal purpose, which was to extend his term in office. On the basis of his private behavior, this action may be subject to legal action at some point.
Trump’s claim that former presidents require immunity in order to protect themselves from political retaliation after leaving office has been rejected by two lower federal courts. Trump’s position was rejected by a panel of three judges from the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in February.
In addition, Smith voiced his disagreement with a previous statement that Trump had made regarding the applicability of the laws that he was accused of breaking to previous presidents.
Smith stated that Trump implies that a criminal statute only applies to the president if it directly addresses the president by name. President Trump has made this statement. “The proposal, which aims to exempt the president from almost all criminal laws, including offenses like bribery, murder, treason, and sedition, lacks a solid basis.”