Special Counsel Jack Smith went completely off the rails and told a federal appeals court that Trump’s immunity argument would allow him to order his supporters to murder opposing lawmakers.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.
“In 234 years of American history, no president ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in last month’s filing, according to CBS News. “To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide.”
Oral arguments in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals begin on January 9.
Jack Smith argued Trump is not immune from prosecution because he could order the murder of his political opponents or sell nuclear secrets.
“The implications of the defendant’s broad immunity theory are sobering. In his view, a court should treat a President’s criminal conduct as immune from prosecution as long as it takes the form of correspondence with a state official about a matter in which there is a federal interest, a meeting with a member of the Executive Branch, or a statement on a matter of public concern,” according to Jack Smith’s 82-page filing reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.
Jack Smith’s team argued that if Trump is protected by the presidential immunity argument, what could stop him from telling his “inciting his supporters during a State of the Union address to kill opposing lawmakers…”
“That approach would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a President who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer; a President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a President who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a President who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, because in each of these scenarios, the President could assert that he was simply executing the laws; or communicating with the Department of Justice; or discharging his powers as Commander-in-Chief; or engaging in foreign diplomacy. Under the defendant’s framework, the Nation would have no recourse to deter a President from inciting his supporters during a State of the Union address to kill opposing lawmakers—thereby hamstringing any impeachment proceeding—to ensure that he remains in office unlawfully,” Jack Smith wrote.
President Trump’s attorneys on Thursday asked the Court to hold Special Counsel Jack Smith in contempt for violating Judge Chutkan’s order staying all proceedings in the January 6 case against Trump.
“President Donald J. Trump respectfully moves this Court for an order to show cause why prosecutors Jack Smith, Molly Gaston, and Thomas Windom (collectively, the “prosecutors”) should not be held in contempt for violating the Court’s order “stay[ing] any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant.” Doc. 186 at 2 (the “Stay Order”).” Trump’s lawyer wrote in the order reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.
“The Stay Order is clear, straightforward, and unambiguous. All substantive proceedings in this Court are halted. Despite this clarity, the prosecutors began violating the Stay almost immediately. First, within five days of the Court entering the Stay Order, the prosecutors served thousands of pages of additional discovery, together with a purported draft exhibit list. Through counsel, President Trump advised that he rejected the prosecutors’ unlawful productions, that their actions violated the Stay Order, and that he would seek relief if their malicious conduct continued.” Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche wrote.
