Subscribe to the Inside Washington email newsletter to receive exclusive coverage and analysis of the United States directly to your email inbox every day.
Sign up for our Inside Washington email newsletter for the latest news and updates from the nation’s capital
Subscribe to our complimentary Inside Washington email newsletter to receive the most recent updates and news from the capital of the United States.
In a recent court document, Special Counsel Jack Smith responded to Donald Trump’s assertion of immunity against criminal charges.
In a filing on Saturday, Mr. Smith’s office stated that Mr. Trump’s assertion could potentially justify committing crimes in order to stay in office.
CNN reported that the filing was submitted in the federal case involving subversion of the election, in anticipation of oral arguments on January 9th at a US appeals court in Washington DC.
Mr. Smith wrote that the defendant claims (Br.1) that this prosecution could “destroy the basic principles of our country.” However, it is actually the defendant’s argument that he should not be held accountable for allegedly trying to stay in power illegally after losing the election that poses a threat to our democracy and constitution.
The speaker stated that the Court should quickly affirm and issue the mandate in order to serve the public’s and the defendant’s strong desire for a timely resolution of this case.
Mr Trump has denied culpability for four charges, which include colluding to deceive the United States and impeding an official proceeding.
The former president, who served only one term, has challenged a district court’s decision that he does not have immunity for any offenses committed during his time in the White House.
According to the special counsel’s filing, granting a president extensive immunity would pose a risk.
The defendant’s expansive immunity theory has concerning consequences. According to this theory, a court should consider a President’s criminal actions immune from prosecution if they involve communication with a state official regarding a federal matter, a meeting with an Executive Branch member, or a statement on a matter of public concern, as stated in the filing.
This approach would provide legal protection to a President who receives a bribe in return for awarding a profitable government contract to the payer; a President who directs the FBI Director to plant damaging evidence on a political opponent; a President who commands the National Guard to kill his most vocal critics; or a President who sells confidential information to a foreign enemy. In each of these situations, the President could argue that they were simply carrying out their duties, communicating with the Department of Justice, fulfilling their role as Commander-in-Chief, or engaging in international diplomacy.
Source: independent.co.uk
