Special counsel Jack Smith rejected Donald Trump’s contention that the criminal indictment of him is constitutionally invalid.
Donald Trump’s bold claims that he’s immune from criminal prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election “threaten to undermine democracy,” special counsel Jack Smith warned a federal appeals court Saturday.
In a brief filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Smith rejected Trump’s contention that the criminal indictment of him for trying to reverse his loss at the polls three years ago is constitutionally invalid because he was serving as president at the time and also because he was acquitted by the Senate after he was impeached for those actions.
“Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant’s sweeping immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office,” Smith and his team wrote in an 82-page filing. “The Founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result.”
wait. so is he now admitting to consciously trying to overturn it by force, or is it just coming from the context of the lawsuit?
In any case, claiming immunity implies you admit doing what you’re accused of doing but you just don’t want consequences to apply to you.
Source on that? I’ve seen it said a lot about accepting a pardon, but not claiming immunity.
IANAL, but from what I understand you always try every option to get a case thrown out on procedural grounds before arguing about guilt or innocence.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Reminded me of this.
He’s trying to say that whether he did it or not, it’s moot. Avoids all the fuss of a trial.
He’s wrong. But that’s his argument.
It’s like getting a ticket for chewing gum. The first thing you’d do is point out it’s not illegal. Then you’d move to, “I was eating.”
Both work, but one puts the ticket on trial, not you.