Special Counsel Jack Smith is scheduled to respond by Dec. 30, after which a three-judge panel will hear oral arguments on Trump's 'immunity' appeal of his D.C. indictment on Jan. 9.

Special Counsel Jack Smith is scheduled to respond by Dec. 30, after which a three-judge panel will hear oral arguments on Trump’s ‘immunity’ appeal of his D.C. indictment on Jan. 9

A federal appeals court should dismiss Donald Trump’s federal felony indictment on election-subversion charges on the grounds that he has “immunity” from prosecution for acts committed while president, attorneys for Trump argued in a court filing Saturday night.

The 71-page opening brief from Trump’s legal team took direct aim at Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal charges, calling them “unlawful and unconstitutional” because under the U.S. government system the judicial branch “cannot sit in judgment over a President’s official acts.”

Trump’s lawyers argue that the only way a current or former president can be charged for official acts is if he’s both impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. They also lean hard into an untested legal argument that Trump can’t be prosecuted for acts where he did get impeached but the Senate acquitted him.

  • themeatbridge
    75•6 months ago

    the judicial branch “cannot sit in judgment over a President’s official acts.”

    That’s the entire premise of checks and balances.

    • TechyDad
      16•6 months ago

      Also, the President has no official role in the elections process. At most, the Justice Department might investigate violations of the Voting Rights Act (what little remains), but the President wouldn’t be involved in this at all.

      And instructing an armed crowd to march on Congress to stop the certification of the vote of DEFINITELY not in his official duties. So even if we accept that Presidents are immune while doing official duties (which they aren’t), then he’s still not immune.