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.
Yeah, QI is pretty awful. The awfulness is compounded by the fact that the reasoning which created it relied upon ahistorical information and in places where it actually makes sense for some level of immunity to be available, that immunity is covered by other principles.
Any immunity that police require should be covered by Good Samaritan laws.