WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014\u00a0Special counsel Jack Smith\u00a0urged a federal appeals court Saturday to\u00a0reject former President Donald Trump\u2019s claims that he is immune from prosecution, saying the suggestion that he cannot be held to account for crimes in office \u201cthreatens the democratic and constitutional foundation\u201d of the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The filing from Smith\u2019s team was submitted ahead of arguments next month on the legally untested question of whether a former president can be prosecuted for acts taken while in the White House.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Though the matter is now being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, it\u2019s likely to come again before the Supreme Court,\u00a0which earlier this month rejected\u00a0prosecutors\u2019 request for a speedy ruling in their favor holding that Trump can be forced to stand trial on charges that he\u00a0plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The outcome of the dispute is critical for both sides especially since the case has been\u00a0effectively paused while Trump advances\u00a0his immunity claims in the appeals court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Prosecutors are hoping a swift judgment rejecting those arguments will restart the case and keep it on track for trial, currently scheduled for March 4 in federal court in Washington. But Trump\u2019s lawyers stand to benefit from a protracted appeals process that could significantly delay the case and potentially push it beyond the November election.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trump\u2019s lawyers maintain that the appeals court should order the dismissal of the case, arguing that as a former president he is exempt from prosecution for acts that fell within his official duties as president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Smith\u2019s team has said no such immunity exists in the Constitution or in case law and that, in any event, the actions that Trump took in his failed effort to cling to power aren\u2019t part of a president\u2019s official responsibilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The four-count indictment charges Trump with conspiring to disrupt the certification in Congress of electoral votes on\u00a0Jan. 6, 2021,\u00a0when rioters motivated by his falsehoods about the election results stormed the U.S. Capitol in a violent clash with police. It alleges that he participated in a scheme to enlist slates of fake electors in battleground states who would falsely attest that Trump had won those states and encouraged then-Vice President Mike Pence to thwart the counting of votes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Those actions, prosecutors wrote, fall well outside a president\u2019s official duties and were intended solely to help him win reelection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cA President who unlawfully seeks to retain power through criminal means unchecked by potential criminal prosecution could jeopardize both the Presidency itself and the very foundations of our democratic system of government officials to use fraudulent means to thwart the transfer of power and remain in office,\u201d Smith\u2019s team wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In their brief, prosecutors also said that though the presidency plays a \u201cvital role in our constitutional system,\u201d so, too, does the principle of accountability in the event of wrongdoing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cRather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant\u2019s sweeping immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office,\u201d they wrote. \u201cThe Founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While Trump\u2019s lawyers have argued that the indictment threatens \u201cthe very bedrock of our Republic,\u201d prosecutors say the defense has it backwards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt is the defendant\u2019s 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,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A three-judge panel is set to hear arguments on Jan. 9. Two of the judges, J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, were appointed by President Joe Biden. The third, Karen LeCraft Henderson, was assigned to the bench by former President George H.W. Bush.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan earlier rejected the immunity arguments, asserting that the office of the presidency does not confer a \u201c\u2018get-out-of-jail free card.\u201d Trump\u2019s lawyers then appealed that decision, prompting Smith to seek to bypass the court and request an expedited decision from the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The justices last week denied that request without explanation, leaving the matter with the appeals court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trump faces three other criminal prosecutions. He is charged in Florida with\u00a0illegally retaining\u00a0classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and faces a state prosecution in Georgia that accuses him of trying to\u00a0subvert that state\u2019s 2020 presidential election\u00a0and a\u00a0New York case\u00a0that accuses him of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment to a porn actress.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014\u00a0Special counsel Jack Smith\u00a0urged a fe […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3048,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3047","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3047","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3047"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3047\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3049,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3047\/revisions\/3049"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/3048"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.viewworld.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}