Special Counsel Jack Smith on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to move former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case to trial without delay.
Prosecutors have been responding to the Trump team’s request to stay the case since earlier this week as they consider whether courts will consider whether the former president is immune from prosecution for his official conduct in the White House. Ta.
Two lower courts overwhelmingly rejected that opinion, so President Trump asked the high court to intervene.
The case, one of four criminal charges facing President Trump, has reached a critical juncture, with the Supreme Court’s next steps determining whether Trump stands trial in Washington this year or may help decide whether or not to proceed. Postponed by weeks or months of additional discussion.
The trial date, which has already been postponed once due to President Trump’s immunity appeal, is of paramount importance to both sides.
Prosecutors plan to put Trump on trial this year, but the defense is seeking a delay in the criminal case.
If Trump is elected with the case still pending, he could use his authority as head of the executive branch to order the Justice Department to dismiss the case or seek his own pardon.
Reflecting their desire to move forward quickly, Prosecutors responded to Trump’s appeal within two days, even though the court had given it until next Tuesday.
Although the filing does not explicitly mention the upcoming November election or Trump’s status as a front-runner in the Republican primary, prosecutors say the case is “nationally unique.” “I am threatened by any delay in resolving these charges.” This is to frustrate the interests of the people who demand a speedy and fair judgment. ”
“The national interest in resolving these charges without delay is urgent,” they wrote.
In August, Smith’s team was charged with conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, including participating in a plot to disrupt the counting of electoral votes in the run-up to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Mr. Trump was indicted. At the U.S. Capitol, his supporters stormed the building and engaged in violent clashes with police.
“The crimes charged strike at the heart of our democracy. The president’s alleged criminal plot to overturn an election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his successor is subject to a new law of absolute impunity in federal criminal law. “It should be the last place that recognizes the shape of the world,” they wrote.
Trump’s lawyers have argued that Trump is protected from prosecution for acts that fall within the scope of his official duties as president, but no other former president has been indicted so there is no legal test. This is a discussion that has not been discussed.
The trial judge and then a federal appeals court rejected those arguments, and a three-judge appeals panel said last week: “We do not accept that the presidential administration continues to prioritize former occupiers above the law.” I can’t do it,” he said.
President Trump’s immunity appeal effectively put a freeze on the proceedings, with U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan canceling a March 4 trial date while the appeals court considers the issue.
No new date has been set.
President Trump’s appeal and request for Supreme Court intervention could lead to further delays depending on the judge’s decision.
In December, Smith and his team urged the justices to take up and decide the immunity issue even before the appeals court considers it.
But the court rejected it.
The Supreme Court’s options include rejecting the emergency appeal, which would allow Chutkan to resume trial proceedings in federal court in Washington.
The court may also extend the postponement while it hears arguments on the immunity issue.
In that case, the schedule the justices set could determine how quickly the trial begins, if the justices do agree with the lower court’s ruling that Trump is not immune from prosecution.
On Wednesday, prosecutors told the court that a lower court’s opinion denying immunity to the former president “underscores how unlikely this court is to agree with Mr. Trump’s unprecedented legal position.” , asked the court to deny Trump’s motion to hear the case.EUR
But if the court wants to decide the issue, Smith said the justices should hear arguments in March and issue a final ruling by late June.
Prosecutors also fear that allowing the case to proceed could discourage future actions by fearing that it could lead to criminal charges after leaving office and open the door to politically motivated lawsuits against former commanders-in-chief. He objected to President Trump’s assertion that there is.
“That dystopian vision runs counter to the checks and balances built into our institutions and constitutional framework,” they wrote.
“These guardrails ensure that the legal process for determining criminal liability is not beholden to ‘political forces,’ as expected by the applicant.”
