Trump’s last plea to Supreme Court on presidential immunity
Former President Donald Trump Makes Final Pitch to Supreme Court in Election Subversion Case
Former President Donald Trump made his final pitch Thursday to the Supreme Court in his bid to pause a trial over the 2020 election subversion charges brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith.
In a 16-page filing, Trump rebuked Smith’s “generic statements” about pushing for the trial to begin months before the 2024 presidential election, emphasizing that there are overwhelming reasons why the case should not go to trial so soon. Trump’s lawyers argued that it would be “virtually unthinkable” for any other defendant to face trial in such a short timeframe, deeming it “wildly unfair.”
Trump firmly believes that former presidents should have immunity from charges related to their actions in office. He asserts that a conviction during the impeachment process is necessary for any former president to face criminal charges in a court of law. However, two lower federal courts have disagreed with this legal argument.
On the other hand, Smith argued that the delay on Trump’s pretrial proceedings should not be extended, as U.S. District Court Tanya Chutkan lacks jurisdiction while the immunity dispute is being appealed.
Trump’s counsel also pointed out that Smith initially urged the Supreme Court to address the presidential immunity dispute but is now opposing it, claiming it would cause a trial delay. Trump’s counsel emphasized that there is no convincing reason to deny the requested stay and urged the Supreme Court to grant it.
Furthermore, Trump’s legal team highlighted the extensive amount of discovery involved in the case, including almost 13 million pages of documents, thousands of hours of video footage, and hundreds of potential witnesses. They argued that it would be ”virtually unthinkable” and ”wildly unfair” for the trial to proceed so soon.
Trump is asking the Supreme Court to determine whether presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties. He also wants the justices to consider whether double jeopardy should prevent prosecution if the president has been impeached and acquitted for the same allegations.
The Supreme Court has several options, including rejecting Trump’s emergency appeal, which would allow the trial proceedings to resume in Washington’s federal court. They could also extend the delay while they hear arguments on the immunity dispute, given the unprecedented nature of the request.
The D.C. Circuit panel, composed of two judges appointed by President Joe Biden and one appointed by a Republican president, firmly rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity for actions within his duties. The high court is expected to decide on Trump’s bid to have them take up the case in the next few days, potentially further delaying his criminal trial.
Click here to read more from The Washington Examiner.
What is Trump’s argument against Smith’s appointment as a special counsel, and how does he claim that it violates the separation of powers
Ues that there is no legal basis for Trump’s claim of immunity and that the alleged actions of subverting the election are serious enough to warrant a trial. Smith maintains that the case should proceed promptly to ensure justice is served and to uphold the integrity of the electoral system.
Trump’s filing also criticized the appointment of Smith as a special counsel, arguing that it was an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers. He stated that Smith’s appointment lacked the required authorization from Congress and that it was solely initiated for politically motivated reasons.
In his final pitch to the Supreme Court, Trump requested a temporary halt in the trial proceedings until the legal issues surrounding the case could be fully reviewed and resolved. He urged the Court to intervene and protect the rights and privileges of former presidents, asserting that allowing the trial to proceed would set a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
This high-stakes battle between Trump and Smith has garnered widespread attention and divided public opinion. Supporters of Trump argue for the importance of preserving the immunity of former presidents, while critics argue that no one should be above the law and that allegations of election subversion should be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted.
The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to grant Trump’s request for a pause in the trial will have far-reaching implications. It will test the boundaries of presidential immunity, the separation of powers, and the preservation of the democratic process. The Court’s ruling will not only impact Trump’s case but could shape the legal landscape for future presidents facing similar situations.
As the clock ticks closer to the trial date, the eyes of the nation are on the Supreme Court. Its decision will undoubtedly be seen as a pivotal moment in American history, shaping the perception of justice, accountability, and the rule of law. The outcome of this case will reverberate through the halls of power and resonate with the American people, solidifying opinions and setting precedents for years to come.
In the end, the Supreme Court must carefully consider the legal arguments presented by both parties and make a decision that upholds the principles of justice while safeguarding the rights of former presidents. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court will play a crucial role in determining the course of this contentious election subversion case and its implications for the future of American democracy.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...