“Under the defendant’s framework, the Nation would have no recourse to deter a President from inciting his supporters during a State of the Union address to kill opposing lawmakers…”
In an 82-page court filing from special counsel Jack Smith filed in a DC appeals court on December 30, the Biden admin prosecutor alleged that Donald Trump’s claim to have presidential immunity in the case relating to January 6 and the 2020 election would set a precedent for future presidents using the State of the Union address to "incite his supporters" to "kill opposing lawmakers."
"The implications of the defendant’s broad immunity theory are sobering," Smith wrote in the filing urging the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to reject the 2024 GOP frontrunner’s appeal, in which he states he has presidential immunity in the case.
"In [Trump's] view, a court should treat a President’s criminal conduct as immune from prosecution as long as it takes the form of correspondence with a state official about a matter in which there is a federal interest, a meeting with a member of the Executive Branch, or a statement on a matter of public concern," Smith wrote.
Smith added that this "approach would grant immunity from criminal prosecution" to presidents who accept bribes for government contracts, "instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy," orders the National Guard to murder critics, or sells nuclear secrets to foreign enemies "because in each of these scenarios, the President could assert that he was simply executing the laws; or communicating with the Department of Justice; or discharging his powers as Commander-in-Chief; or engaging in foreign diplomacy."
"Under the defendant’s framework, the Nation would have no recourse to deter a President from inciting his supporters during a State of the Union address to kill opposing lawmakers—thereby hamstringing any impeachment proceeding—to ensure that he remains in office unlawfully," Smith wrote.
"Such a result would severely undermine the compelling public interest in the rule of law and criminal accountability."
Trump appealed the case to the court over claims that he had presidential immunity. Trump’s team first filed the motion for immunity with DC Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case. Chutkan rejected the motion, and Trump's attorneys then appealed to the DC appellate court.
Smith filed a request with the Supreme Court to circumvent the appellate court’s decision, which denied the request. The case is currently on hold as the appeals process takes place, which is likely to reach the Supreme Court after the appeals court issues its ruling.
Jack Smith Appeals Court by Hannah Nightingale on Scribd
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
