Former President Donald Trump's claim of "absolute immunity" from prosecution in his federal election interference case will be tested in arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Legal experts are divided on the issue, with some citing textual evidence from the Constitution's framers that suggests no immunity for former presidents, while others argue that some of Trump's conduct may fall within the "outer perimeter" of his official duties. The case, likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, could have significant implications for the 2024 election.
Special counsel Jack Smith's team has countered former President Donald Trump's legal team's motion to hold Smith in contempt for allegedly violating court deadlines. Smith's office asserts they complied with the court's order by continuing to provide discovery as previously scheduled and that Trump's claims of partisanship and misconduct are unfounded. The case is currently on hold while an appeals court reviews Trump's claim of presidential immunity, with a hearing on the matter set for the following week.
Special counsel Jack Smith's team filed a response to former President Donald Trump's legal team's motion to hold Smith in contempt for allegedly violating court deadlines. Smith's office maintains that they complied with the court's order and continued to voluntarily meet deadlines to facilitate the resumption of the pretrial schedule after the appeals court decision. Trump's team had accused Smith of partisanship and prosecutorial misconduct, which Smith's office called baseless. The appeals court is set to hear arguments soon, with the possibility of the case reaching the Supreme Court.
Former President Donald Trump's legal team has filed a motion to hold Special Counsel Jack Smith in contempt of court, accusing him of violating a stay order in the investigation into Trump's alleged interference in the 2020 election. Trump's attorneys argue that the stay order halts all substantive proceedings, yet claim Smith's team continued legal actions, including serving discovery documents and filing motions. Trump's team contends that Smith's actions are politically motivated and seek to use the court as a tool against Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to charges related to the 2020 election and the January 6 Capitol riot. The motion requests that Smith withdraw his filings and be sanctioned monetarily for the alleged violations.
Former President Donald Trump's legal team is attempting to delay his federal election interference trial, arguing that special counsel Jack Smith and prosecutors should be held in contempt for continuing legal actions despite a stay in proceedings. Trump's lawyer, John Lauro, insists the trial should be postponed until 2026 and accuses prosecutors of partisan misconduct. The special counsel's office has been meeting pretrial deadlines to ensure a prompt trial if the court's stay is lifted. Trump's campaign has attacked Smith, framing Trump's actions as a duty to investigate the 2020 election, while Smith's team alleges Trump was acting in personal interest. The trial is currently scheduled for March 4, 2024, but Trump's team is seeking to extend this date.
Nick Akerman, a Watergate prosecutor, predicts that the Supreme Court will not hear former President Donald Trump's appeal on presidential immunity in connection with charges from the January 6 insurrection and the 2020 election interference case. Trump has been charged with several counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, and has pleaded not guilty, claiming political targeting. The Supreme Court has already declined to rule on Trump's claims, stating an appellate court must first decide. Legal analysts suggest Trump may be attempting to delay his trial, set for March 4, until after the 2024 presidential election, where a win could allow him to pardon himself or drop the charges. However, Akerman believes the Supreme Court will avoid intervening in the matter, allowing the trial to proceed as scheduled.
Donald Trump is fighting on multiple legal fronts, appealing a Maine decision to block him from the 2024 ballots due to his involvement in the Capitol riot and arguing for presidential immunity in a DC appeals court against federal election subversion charges. His lawyers claim his actions are protected as "official acts," while Special Counsel Jack Smith warns against granting such broad immunity. Meanwhile, a civil lawsuit against Trump by a Capitol Police officer's partner can partially proceed, and Trump's rhetoric continues to be a point of analysis and concern as the 2024 election approaches.
Special Counsel Jack Smith is suggesting a range of serious crimes in the theoretical arguments against former President Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity, including bribery, falsifying evidence, and selling nuclear secrets. These hypotheticals are part of the legal battle ahead of Trump's criminal trial in D.C., which is tentatively set to begin in March. Trump's defense argues these scenarios are not based in reality and are irrelevant to the case, which focuses on Trump's actions surrounding the 2020 election. The appellate judges are considering key issues before the trial, including the extent of presidential immunity, with oral arguments scheduled for next Tuesday.
The U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia has notified Donald Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith to be ready to discuss amicus briefs in a case regarding Trump's alleged actions to overturn the 2020 election results. This notice is unusual and indicates the court's interest in a broad array of arguments. An amicus brief filed by American Oversight argues that the court lacks jurisdiction for Trump's appeal and suggests the case should return to trial. Trump maintains his claim to absolute immunity, which has been previously rejected by Judge Tanya Chutkan. The court's focus on the amicus briefs suggests a thorough examination of the presidential immunity issues at stake.
Legal experts suggest that Donald Trump's presidential immunity defense in his election interference case is likely to fail. Former Trump White House lawyer Jim Schultz predicts the D.C. Circuit Court will swiftly reject the immunity claim. Special Counsel Jack Smith's recent filing argues against the notion of "absolute immunity" for presidents, stating it would allow them to commit crimes to stay in office, which is contrary to the Founders' intentions. The Supreme Court has already declined an expedited ruling on the matter, and legal analysts believe Smith's filing is a strategic move to expedite the case and counter Trump's delay tactics.
Donald Trump's legal team is set to submit final written arguments to a federal appeals court, claiming he is immune from prosecution regarding charges over the 2020 presidential election. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 9. Meanwhile, Trump is gaining support among young and Hispanic voters, potentially challenging Biden in the 2024 race. Trump also plans to counter-program the CNN Iowa debate with a Fox News town hall. Other news includes Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy's grievances with CNN and decisions by Colorado and Maine to remove Trump from the ballot, which are likely to face Supreme Court challenges.
Special counsel Jack Smith filed a brief opposing Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity regarding actions taken to overturn the 2020 election results. The brief argues that the Constitution does not grant presidents the power to commit crimes to stay in office and that Trump's acquittal by the Senate does not protect him from criminal liability. The filing comes as Trump faces four criminal indictments, and a three-judge panel is set to hear arguments on the matter on January 9. Earlier, the Supreme Court declined to expedite a ruling on Trump's immunity claim.
Special counsel Jack Smith has argued against Donald Trump's claim of immunity for his actions to overturn the 2020 election results, suggesting that such a precedent could allow presidents to commit crimes with impunity. In a recent court filing, Smith contended that Trump's defense could enable criminal behavior by a sitting president under the guise of performing official duties, effectively placing them above the law. The brief comes after a district court judge dismissed Trump's immunity claim earlier in the month.
Special counsel Jack Smith has countered former President Donald Trump's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution in a court filing, arguing that such immunity would dangerously allow presidents to commit crimes to stay in office. The filing is part of the federal election subversion case, with oral arguments set for January 9. Trump has appealed a lower court's decision that he is not entitled to immunity for actions taken while president, pleading not guilty to charges including conspiracy to defraud the United States. Smith's office warns that Trump's broad immunity theory could lead to a president being above the law, even in extreme criminal scenarios.
Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a court document arguing against former President Donald Trump's claim of "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution due to his former presidential status. Smith's office contends that no one is above the law, citing constitutional principles and historical precedents, and emphasizes that the charges Trump faces are different from those in his impeachment trial. The DOJ argues that Trump's actions to remain in power after losing the election should be scrutinized, not shielded by immunity. The appeals court is set to review the immunity claim, with potential implications for the trial date and the 2024 presidential election.
