Jack Smith urges Supreme Court to reject Trump's immunity claim
In a court filing ahead of April 25 arguments, Smith laid out a series of arguments against Trump’s claim that a president has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution.
WASHINGTON — Special counsel Jack Smith urged the Supreme Court on Monday to reject former President Donald Trump's position that he should be granted absolute immunity in the federal election interference case, with prosecutors arguing that criminal law applies to a president.
The 66-page filing from Smith and his team laid out a series of arguments taking aim at Trump’s claim that a president is immune from criminal prosecution. Prosecutors argued that there are no presidential powers that would entitle Trump to immunity in this case and that “history likewise refutes” Trump’s arguments.
“The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts,” Smith said in the brief, referring to President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal.
He also said Trump "suggests that unless a criminal statute expressly names the President, the statute does not apply."
"That radical suggestion, which would free the President from virtually all criminal law — even crimes such as bribery, murder, treason, and sedition — is unfounded," the filing said.
Rating: 5