In his final filing before the hearing, Special counsel Jack Smith is urging the Supreme Court to reject former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity and deny any motions to delay a trial on charges related to the 2020 federal election conspiracy case. The Department of Justice prosecutors allege that President Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election result on Jan. 6, 2021, charging him with four counts of conspiracy and obstruction. Despite Trump’s claims of immunity for his actions while in office, Mr. Smith argues that presidential immunity has no basis in the Constitution, the nation’s history, or the understanding that presidents are not above the law.
Mr. Smith points out that former President Richard Nixon’s conduct during the Watergate scandal serves as a historical precedent, and Nixon eventually accepted a pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford, implying recognition that a former President is subject to prosecution. He emphasizes that the Department of Justice has held the view that a former President may face criminal prosecution, and all former presidents have known they could be held accountable for their actions while in office.
Former President Trump continues to argue for immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, claiming that the Presidency cannot function effectively if former Presidents face the threat of prosecution after leaving office. The attorneys general from 18 Republican states have submitted an amicus brief in support of Trump’s argument, suggesting that the legal efforts against him are partisan in nature.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on April 25 to determine the scope of presidential immunity and its impact on the separation of powers in future administrations. The outcome of this case could influence Trump’s other legal battles where he also asserts presidential immunity as a defense. The question of whether this immunity applies to former presidents is a new and significant issue that the Court will address. Could you please rephrase that?
Source link
