The filing came in the federal election subversion case ahead of 9 January oral arguments
Special counsel Jack Smith has hit back at Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution in a new court filing.
Mr Smith’s office argued in a Saturday filing that Mr Trump’s claim “threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office.”
The filing came in the federal election subversion case ahead of 9 January oral arguments before a US appeals court in Washington DC, reported CNN.
“The defendant asserts (Br.1) that this prosecution ‘threatens … to shatter the very bedrock of our Republic.’ To the contrary: it is the defendant’s claim that he cannot be held to answer for the charges that he engaged in an unprecedented effort to retain power through criminal means, despite having lost the election, that threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of our Republic,” Mr Smith wrote.
“This Court should affirm and issue the mandate expeditiously to further the public’s — and the defendant’s — compelling interest in a prompt resolution of this case,” he added.
Where did you get that?
Trumps flat out wrong about this immunity claim, and it would pretty much destroy all checks and balances if allowed, but he’s only claiming it for acts while he was still in office. Jan 6th happened while he was still legally the President. He’s claiming that he has immunity for actions as President.
Obama hasn’t been president in 7 years. Anything he does now is as a normal citizen. An equal comparison would be if Obama were charged today for something that happened in 2016, and he claimed immunity.
It would mean that Biden would be immune from prosecution for anything though now, which would set up for him just ignoring any election, legally.
Serious question: can you not recognize sarcasm, or irony? The poster you’re answering was clearly not serious, and was pointing out hypocrisy.
I don’t see any sarcasm is irony in there. It’s an attempt at an analogy but the mistake is so big as to only confuse the matter further.
I meant if the SC accepted trump’s argument that he’s got unconditional immunity even for things after he left office (which they won’t, but hypothetically if they did), it would mean that would apply to Biden, Obama, and Clinton, too.
He’s trying the immunity argument for the classified docs thing, too, not just J6. If he can still claim immunity after leaving office, Obama could go on a crime spree and claim immunity, too.
None of that matters, though, because this whole claim is laughably unconstitutional.