USA (Washington Insider Magazine)— On Saturday night, Donald Trump asked a federal appeals court to disregard special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal case against him for aiming to bring down the 2020 election. He contended that he was “absolutely immune” from the indictments because they related to his official responsibilities as president.
In a 71-page opening brief pointed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Trump’s attorneys stated that the prosecution’s charges mainly concentrate on his actions to lobby state and federal officials to subvert the election results. These actions, they claim, were within Trump’s official duties to ensure the 2020 election was executed relatively.
That statement has been poorly managed in other federal courts viewing it, as judges have differentiated between benign lobbying and the apparent criminal scheme to derail power transfer established on lies about election scams.
Smith has claimed that Trump’s official duties could not perhaps include measures to disenfranchise millions of voters and force state officials using deliberately false allegations of election fraud.
However, Trump’s attorneys insist that all the steps he took to display himself as the victor in the 2020 presidential contest amounted to actions he carried out on behalf of the nation rather than himself.
“Under our system of separated powers, the Judicial Branch cannot sit in judgment over a President’s official acts,” Missouri-based lawyer John Sauer and other members of the Trump legal team reported. “The indictment against President Trump is unlawful and unconstitutional. It must be dismissed.”
Trump’s argument seems to be as much about enduring in the appeals court as it is about an offer to slow down the lawsuit against him. His appeal has already moved a short halt to the criminal proceedings in the District Court, throwing his March 4 trial date into suspicion.
Smith has desired critical consideration from the courts. He contends an intense public interest in settling the case in 2024, although he’s shied away from openly debating Trump’s current drive for the GOP presidential nomination. On Friday, the Supreme Court denied Smith’s appeal for the justices to step into the case expedited, departing the matter with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Smith is also imploring for speed.
The three-judge appeals court panel appointed to the case seems to concur with Smith’s insistence on urgency, developing a rapid sequence of deadlines culminating in oral statements set for Jan. 9.
If the judges, Karen LeCraft Henderson and BJ. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan rule in Smith’s turn, and the case could be concluded before the judges next month.
Trump’s lawyers argue former presidents can be charged criminally for their official actions in one scenario never witnessed in U.S. history: when a president is impeached and sentenced by the Senate.
“Before any prosecutor can ask a court to sit in judgment of the President’s conduct, Congress must have approved it by impeaching and convicting the President. That did not happen here, so President Trump has absolute immunity,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.
Trump’s brief pulls heavily on dialogues among the founders about the need to save presidents’ official actions from court review. They claimed that allowing the case against Trump would lead to recrimination and revenge against future presidents.
The former president remarked on the case on Truth Social on Sunday. His usual claim was that the 2020 election was somehow robbed from him.
“I was doing my duty as President to expose and further investigate a Rigged and Stolen Election. It was my obligation to do so, and the proof found is voluminous and irrefutable,” he wrote.
One apparent obstacle to the Trump campaign’s views is President Gerald Ford’s controversial amnesty of former President Richard Nixon over Watergate. Since Nixon was never formally impeached or sentenced, the pardon wouldn’t have been required under Trump’s theory.
However, Trump’s attorneys argue the unusual act of mercy still supports their case.
“President Ford’s issuance of a prophylactic pardon to prevent a potentially bitter, protracted, divisive prosecution of a former President … reinforces the political and constitutional tradition against prosecuting Presidents — it does not undermine it,” they wrote.
