This guy's not messing around ...
— —
Jack Smith has filed his argument against Trump’s Immunity Claims for any insurrection and coup crimes, that he may have committed.
[...]
Lawyers for Trump had asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan earlier this month to toss the federal election subversion case, asserting that he was immune from prosecution for actions he took while fulfilling his duties as president.
Special counsel Jack Smith's team responded in its own filing Thursday that there is nothing in the Constitution, or in court precedent, to support the idea that Trump or any other former president cannot be prosecuted for criminal conduct committed while in the White House.
“The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens,” prosecutors wrote.
dailykos.com via Associated Press — Oct 19, 2023
—
I had heard something about this story yesterday — but not much about its details. That’s been happening a lot lately. Something has finally pushed dysfunctional party of insurrection to the back pages … of The News.
Thankfully today, MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace and team covered of the story of the Special Counsel’s response to the ridiculous Trump immunity request, with the scrutiny it deserves.
Here were some of the key sections of that court filing, that they found worthy of discussing on the Air, for at least 10 minutes. Just in case, us weary Americans are beginning to tune out, and forget what’s at stake. (I have added some emphasis, to highlight the main points in these sections.)
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY GROUNDS
[pg 12]
I. Introduction
Defendant Donald J. Trump moves to dismiss the indictment, asking the Court to afford him absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for what he expansively claims was official conduct during his presidency. ECF No. 74 (“Mot.”). That novel approach to immunity would contravene the fundamental principle that “[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law.” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882). The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens. None of the sources the defendant points to in his motion—the Constitution’s text and structure, history and tradition, or Supreme Court precedent—supports the absolute immunity he asks the Court to create for him. In staking his claim, he purports (Mot. 29) to draw a parallel between his fraudulent efforts to overturn the results of an election that he lost and the likes of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and George Washington’s Farewell Address. These things are not alike. The more apt parallel the defendant identifies (Mot. 17-18) is to judges, who, like a former president, enjoy absolute immunity from civil damages liability for certain conduct but who are “subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens.” Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 31 (1980). The same is true for the defendant. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment based upon presidential immunity should be denied.
[pg 41]
Bestowing blanket immunity from criminal prosecution on a former president would also create troubling incentives. A president wholly immune from criminal prosecution for any conduct undertaken while in office—particularly one in a second term who would not face voters in another presidential election—could commit crimes with impunity that benefit himself, endanger the republic, or both. See Claire O. Finkelstein & Richard W. Painter, Presidential Accountability and the Rule of Law: Can the President Claim Immunity If He Shoots Someone on Fifth Avenue?, 24 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 93, 193 (2022) (“A President who is immune from criminal prosecution thus poses a very real danger that he will commit crimes that will secure not only his continuation in office, but also thereby allow him to protect himself against impeachment during his (next) term and immunize himself against prosecution once he is no longer in office.”). Immunity from criminal prosecution would be particularly inappropriate where, as here, the former president is alleged to have engaged in criminal conduct aimed at overturning the results of a presidential election in order to remain in office.
[pg 48]
The indictment alleges a conspiracy to overturn the presidential election results, ECF No. 1 at ¶ 7, through targeting state officials, id. at ¶¶ 13-52; creating fraudulent slates of electors in seven states, id. at ¶¶ 53-69; leveraging the Department of Justice in the effort to target state officials through deceit and substitute the fraudulent elector slates for the legitimate ones, id. at ¶¶ 70-85; attempting to enlist the Vice President to fraudulently alter the election results during the certification proceeding on January 6, 2021, and directing supporters to the Capitol to obstruct the proceeding, id. at ¶¶ 86-105; and exploiting the violence and chaos that transpired at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, id. at ¶¶ 106-124. Allowing a former President to face criminal prosecution for that alleged conduct would not encroach on an Article II power, let alone a core presidential responsibility. Instead, the allegations focus principally on the defendant’s actions as a candidate for elective office. Furthermore, the indictment alleges that the defendant acted deceitfully or corruptly to secure a personal benefit to himself as a presidential candidate, not to carry out constitutional obligations entrusted to the presidency. Immunity should not foreclose the Government from shouldering the burden to prove those demanding standards, see supra 31-32, beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. The defendant’s contrary arguments are unpersuasive.
—
Former DA and now legal expert for MSNBC Joyce Vance, commented that the original request for “presidential immunity” by Trump’s Lawyers was “frivolous” and “likely done as a delay tactic.” She thinks their request will be rejected by the DC Judge — and then will likely be appealed to a high court, once denied.
Delay, delay, delay.
The irony that they can argue that: Trump’s actions — with respect to the Fake Electors scheme, coercing R-congressman to go along with the scheme, and inciting his mob to “fight like hell” to stop the certification of the Biden win — fall under his “official duties as the then-president,” is patently ridiculous.
The odds of them winning on appeal, should be negligible. Yet the ensuing Media-circus will further Trump’s primary legal M.O. ...
Delay, delay, delay.
No wonder so many of us have grown weary of this both-sides-ism soap opera nonsense. Enough already, when is someone in the National Media, going to call out candidate Trump for the renegade, chaos-hurling, law-breaker that he really is?
Giving him any shred of credibility (like calling him Mr. President), only furthers his campaign of deception and intimidation threats. It does not clarify, or bring into focus, these disgusting tactics.
If Team Trump had any real evidence of their 2020 elections claims — they would have produced it a long time ago.
But they have not. They have nothing — except hate, fear, and fabrications.
Those harsh facts are starting to hit home for the accused. As yet another from the inner circle of the Trump Big Lie scam, has decided it is better to turn state’s evidence — than to do hard time for The Boss.
It’s about time. Now if only the Corporate Media would wake up to this same reality …
And pick a side already — hopefully, after pondering what’s at stake, they decide to join sides with the facts. Afterall, that is what is expected of journalists, in a law-abiding society:
Follow the Facts.
— —
