Following a unique course of action by Special Counsel Jack Smith, Former President Donald Trump expressed strong disapproval. Deviating from traditional procedure, Smith petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the applicability of presidential immunity in a case surrounding the 2020 election. This move sparked reactions from the ex-president, who condemned Smith’s actions in a public statement on Truth Social.
The crux of the matter falls on Smith’s decision to sidestep the federal appeals court and directly approach the nation’s highest authority to determine whether the former president can exercise total immunity from federal prosecution. This relates to alleged illicit efforts to alter the outcomes of the previous election while he was in office.
Trump took to the social forum on Wednesday, criticizing Smith. He described him as a ‘maladjusted’ prosecutor, a ‘Biden appointee’ who has a history of overstepping boundaries and rushing important legal issues, such as the question of Presidential Immunity. Trump argued that such immunity is elemental to American democracy and thus its applicability should be a given.
In the spotlight is the federal trial set to commence in March of 2024. In Smith’s official documents, there is significant emphasis on the necessity of speedy and decisive action by the Supreme Court on the issue regarding immunity. The timing of the federal trial, in which Trump has staunchly proclaimed his innocence by pleading not guilty on four counts, is also a matter of keen interest for the former president.
Trump staunchly maintains his innocence and has long contended that any criminal investigations against him are politically motivated attempts to destabilize his possible 2024 run. He accuses Smith of trying to leverage the Supreme Court to hinder his potential candidacy in the upcoming presidential elections.
The former president has commented publically, insinuating that Smith wants to influence the 2024 Presidential Election to his advantage. He contends that if the special counsel was truly interested in swift justice, this lawsuit would have been brought up three years earlier and completed by now.
Contrarily, Trump argues, the Special Counsel chose to ‘hold off’ before springing this lawsuit, timing it conspicuously to coincide with his campaign. Trump views this as a clear example of ‘election interference’ – an act done purposely to hamper his chances at the presidency.
The defense presented by Smith’s team centers around the argument that presidential duties do not encompass the actions Trump stands accused of. However, it’s worth noting that no incumbent president has ever endured criminal allegations. Trump’s legal defense is banking on this historical precedence to strive for a dismissal of the indictment.
There is presently no consensus as to whether a sitting president’s immunity encompasses criminal prosecution. Still, the Supreme Court has established the president’s general immunity from civil liabilities. Recently, Trump’s legal team was instructed by the Supreme Court to submit their responses by December 20, as they resolved to consider the case.
Separate appeals were made to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, advocating for a denial of Smith’s request for expedited appeal. However, the push made in those appeals failed to gather sufficient support.
Trump’s attorneys, in their briefs, made a comparison of Smith to the Grinch, pointing out that the proposed schedule would place the former president’s opening brief due the day following Christmas. Despite this, the prosecutors maintained the importance of a prompt resolution to these critical legal matters over personal scheduling concerns.
Trump’s potential 2024 re-election campaign issued a forceful statement lambasting both Smith and current President Joe Biden. The latter, who is also planning to campaign for re-election, along with Smith, is sticking to the March 4 trial date for the case. This date is notably just a day prior to the Super Tuesday primaries.
The statement accused Biden’s confidant, Smith, of being hellbent on obstructing the 2024 Presidential Election to hinder Trump’s chances of reclaiming his former position. Additionally, they criticized Smith’s audacity in opting for a hail-mary tactic – rushing to the Supreme Court, bypassing the appeal process.
The situation continues to evolve, with the nation watching closely as the drama unfolds. The intense scrutiny around Special Counsel Jack Smith’s actions, former President Trump’s reactions, and the ramifications of the potential legal decisions highlight the uncharted territory we find ourselves in.