Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, Twitter
Special Prosecutor Jack Smith on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on Trump's immunity defense argument and asked the highest court in the country to rule quickly before the issue is actually on the court docket on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on charges that he allegedly orchestrated events to overturn the 2020 election result.
And, these legal steps have been taken without a verdict in the case against former President Donald Trump.
Smith’s request of the U.S. Supreme Court at this point in time could seem extraordinary because it is.
His judicial move raises the question what is Smith’s motive and is his prosecutorial team’s request an over-reach.
Smith’s judicial request cited Trump's March 4 trial date.
"It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected," reads Smith’s filing.
Smith has also requested an expedited ruling by the Supreme Court on whether it will even allow the case to even go on the Supreme Court’s docket in the future.
A federal judge ruled the case against Trump could go forward, but Trump’s lawyers have stated they would ask the federal appeals court in Washington to reverse that outcome.
Seemingly, Smith is trying to bypass the appeals court, the next ordinary step in the judicial process, and put pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the matter now.
The justices on Monday indicated they would decide quickly whether to hear Smith’s appeal, ordering Trump’s lawyers to respond by Dec. 20.
There was no indication what the court would ultimately rule.
“There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters. President Trump will continue to fight for Justice and oppose these authoritarian tactics,” his campaign stated.
"This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin," Smith argues in his pleading.
The public should note that the former president has not been convicted.
In his Supreme Court brief, Mr. Smith conceded that Trump’s trial would most likely have to be paused because of the appeal of the immunity issue.
Smith’s filing comes after Judge Tanya S. Chutkan - who worked at the law firm which represented Fusion GPS that helped orchestrate the Russia collusion hoax - rejected Trump's sweeping claims of "absolute immunity.”
Chukan’s ruling condemned attempts to "usurp the reins of government," and said that nothing in the Constitution or US history supports the notion that a former president is immune.
Chutkan was appointed by President Barack Obama, and wrote that the office of the president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”
“Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office,” the judge added.
The Department of Justice policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. This ruling would be the first time the courts would decide on whether an ex-presidents could be immune from prosecution.
Trump’s attorney are arguing that he cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president.
Smith’s prosecutorial team disagree although a verdict has not yet been rendered against Trump.
Smith’s team stressed that if the court did not expedite the matter, there would not be an opportunity to consider and resolve the question in this current term.
“The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request. This is an extraordinary case,” prosecutors wrote. “The Court should grant certiorari and set a briefing schedule that would permit this case to be argued and resolved as promptly as possible.”
If the Supreme Court justices decline to step in at this point, Trump’s appeal would continue through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Is it a showdown of lawyers? It could be argued this is a legal blood bath.
Michael Dreeben, a former Justice Department lawyer, who has argued criminal cases before the Supreme Court for years, recently joined Smith’s prosecutorial team.
Dreeben was part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team in the Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The court is next scheduled to meet privately on January 5, 2024.
Subscribe to our evening newsletter to stay informed during these challenging times!!
