Poli Alert Political & Civics
Related Articles
Jimmy Williams
Special counsel Jack Smith has strongly opposed former President Donald Trump’s bid to dismiss the federal election interference case against him, arguing that presidential immunity doesn’t shield Trump from criminal charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
In an extensive 80-page filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Smith contended that separation-of-powers principles, constitutional text, history, and precedent affirm that a former president can be prosecuted for criminal acts committed while in office.
“Separation-of-powers principles, constitutional text, history, and precedent all make clear that a former President may be prosecuted for criminal acts he committed while in office — including, most critically here, illegal acts to remain in power despite losing an election,” prosecutors wrote.
“Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant’s sweeping immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office,” they added. “The Founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result.”
Smith’s filing responds to Trump’s December 23 brief, where his lawyers asserted that constitutional immunity doctrines safeguard a president from criminal prosecution for official acts unless impeached and convicted by the Senate.
“Nor may a President face criminal prosecution based on conduct for which he was acquitted by the U.S. Senate,” Trump attorney D. John Sauer wrote in last week’s filing. “The indictment against President Trump is unlawful and unconstitutional. It must be dismissed.”
In Saturday’s filing, Smith tackled these arguments, emphasizing that while separation-of-powers doctrine shields a former president from civil liability for official conduct, it does not grant immunity from criminal liability for violations of federal criminal statutes. The special counsel asserted that any burdens of post-presidency criminal liability are outweighed by the paramount public interest in upholding the rule of law through federal prosecution.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, overseeing the case, previously ruled that Trump’s presidential immunity claims do not protect him from the charges. The appeals court is set to hear oral arguments on January 9, potentially impacting the trial’s scheduled start date of March 4.
Trump faces four counts related to conspiring to overturn his election loss, maintaining his innocence and asserting entitlement to immunity. His attempts to delay legal challenges until after the upcoming election have been a recurring theme in the case.
