Special Counsel Jack Smith went completely off the rails and told a federal appeals court that Trump's immunity argument would allow him to order his supporters to kill opposition lawmakers.
Trump's lawyers argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged “crimes” he committed while serving as president of the United States.
“In 234 years of American history, no president has ever faced criminal prosecution for his or her official actions. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution existed.” And to this day, no court has ever addressed It can be dealt with by any court of appeal. “This question is among the most complex, complex and serious issues that this Court will ever be called upon to decide.”
Oral arguments begin in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on January 9.
Jack Smith said that Trump is not immune from prosecution because he may order the killing of his political opponents or sell nuclear secrets.
“The implications of the defendant's broad immunity theory are troubling. In his view, the Court should treat the president's criminal conduct as immune from prosecution so long as it takes the form of correspondence with a government official on a matter of federal interest, or a meeting with a member of authority.” “or a meeting with a member of the executive branch, or a meeting with a member of the executive branch. Or a statement on a matter of public concern,” according to an 82-page dossier that Jack Smith reviewed. Critic portal.
Jack Smith's team claimed that if Trump was protected by the pretext of presidential immunity, what could stop him from telling “his supporters' incitement during his State of the Union address to kill opposition lawmakers. . . .”
“This approach would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for steering a lucrative government contract to his payer; A president who orders the FBI director to plant evidence incriminating a political enemy; A president orders the National Guard to kill his most prominent critics; Or a president selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, because in each of these scenarios, the president could assert that he was simply enforcing the laws; Or contact the Ministry of Justice; or exercise his powers as Commander-in-Chief; Or engage in foreign diplomacy. Under defendant, the nation would have no way to deter the president from inciting his supporters during the State of the Union address to kill opposition lawmakers — thereby obstructing any impeachment proceedings — to illegally ensure he remained in office.Jack Smith wrote.
President Trump's lawyers on Thursday asked the court to detain special counsel Jack Smith on charges that he violated Judge Chutkan's order halting all proceedings in the Jan. 6 case against Trump.
“President Donald J. Trump respectfully moves this Court to issue an order to show cause why Attorneys General Jack Smith, Molly Gaston, and Thomas Windom (collectively, the 'Prosecutors') should not be charged with violating the Court's 'stay there' order.[ing] Any additional proceedings that would move this case toward trial or impose additional litigation burdens on the defendant. document. 186 at 2 (“Stay Order”),” Trump’s attorney wrote in the order reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.
“The stay order is clear, direct, and unambiguous. All substantive proceedings in this court are stayed. Despite this clarity, prosecutors began violating the stay order almost immediately. First, within five days of the court issuing the stay order, prosecutors filed “Thousands of pages of additional discovery, along with a draft list of alleged evidence. Through counsel, President Trump communicated that he rejected prosecutors' unlawful advances, that their actions violated the stay order, and that he would seek redress if their malicious conduct continued,” Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche wrote.
