United States: As a former president, Trump is not exempt from the criminal charge of election subversion, according to a lower court’s decision, which special counsel Jack Smith requested the Supreme Court to examine last week. In his plea to the justices, Smith asked that they undertake the unusual action of reviewing the matter before a federal appeals court in Washington DC, providing its opinion.
To determine as soon as possible whether Trump is completely immune from criminal prosecution for charges arising from his purported plot to rig the 2020 election, the justices are now considering a request from Smith to circumvent the DC Circuit. In the lawsuit, Trump has entered a not-guilty plea.
“In 234 years of American history, no president ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists,” Trump’s legal team wrote in Wednesday’s filing, according to CBS News.
“To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide,” the statement added.
The special counsel is urging the High Court to “rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon.”
They reiterated that the indictment returned by a federal grand jury in August charges Trump with acts of political speech and advocacy — contesting the outcome of the 2020 election — while he was still in the White House. Trump’s lawyers also raised several issues with Smith’s request, arguing in part that the government lacks legal standing to appeal a ruling in its favor.
They also restated that Trump is accused of engaging in political advocacy and speech while he was still in the White House, as per the indictment delivered by a federal grand jury in August—the accusations center on his contestation of the results of the 2020 election.
“An erroneous denial of a claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts warrants this Court’s review — in due course,” lawyers John Sauer, John Lauro, and Todd Blanche wrote. “Yet importance does not automatically necessitate speed.”
In the event that the former president’s claim of immunity is denied, Smith has stated that it is imperative that the trial in the case against Trump start on March 4. Conversely, Trump’s legal team contended that the request presented a “strong appearance of partisan motivation: to guarantee that President Trump — the front-runner Republican in the presidential race and the biggest electoral danger to President Biden — will be subjected to a protracted criminal trial during the height of his campaign.”
They pointed out that the trial is set to begin the day before Super Tuesday when more than a dozen states host their presidential primary elections and accused Smith of pursuing Mr Biden’s partisan interest.
Fight over Immunity
Trump claimed that the four-count indictment against him should be dismissed as these arose from official acts undertaken while he was the president. A federal district court judge rejected Trump’s effort to toss out the case earlier this month.
Chutkan consented to halt all court proceedings while Trump’s appeal before the DC Circuit is being handled. US District Judge Tanya Chutkan stated in her December 1 decision approving the prosecution of Trump, “Whatever privileges a sitting president may have, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that post does not bestow a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ ticket.”
An unusual report was made by special counsel requesting the High Court, setting up a crucial battle that may determine the fate of Trump’s prosecution.
“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” Smith wrote in his request earlier this month. “Respondent’s claims are profoundly mistaken, as the district court held. But only this Court can definitively resolve them.”
Smith reminded the Court that Trump is not above the law; he is alleged to have broken laws to obstruct the transfer of power to his successor. “Nothing could be more vital to our democracy than that a president who abuses the electoral system to remain in office is held accountable for criminal conduct,” the special counsel wrote.
Trump’s lawyer told the Supreme Court that the president can only be prosecuted if he’s impeached, tried, and convicted by the Senate, their filing Wednesday.
“The Constitution opens the door to such prosecutions but requires a strong political consensus — i.e., the participation of the political branches, including a supermajority of the US Senate, the Republic’s traditional ‘cooling saucer’ — before such a drastic action can be taken,” they wrote.
In the forthcoming days, the arguments will take place as early as next month if the justices hear the case before the appeals court makes its decision. The Supreme Court may decide whether to fast-track the case.