Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is at it again. After pressuring and criticizing Florida Judge Aileen Cannon, who is handling the case of the classified papers found at Donald Trump´s at Mar-a-Lago residence, he has now demanded a quick response from the Supreme Court on whether the former president was protected for presidential immunity in the case of electoral interference. In addition to hurrying things up, the special prosecutor has told the High Court that it must reject the magnate's claim. Trump himself called for Smith to be sanctioned last week for his criticism of Cannon.
A "historic" case due to the "singular gravity" of Trump's crimes, according to Jack Smith
In a 66-page document, to which NBC had access, Smith notes that "the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general right to violate them." Furthermore, he emphasizes that the "singular seriousness" of the crimes with which he is accused is what makes the case "historical" and there is no "immunity" for them:
Even assuming that a former President is entitled to some immunity for official acts, that immunity should not be held to bar this prosecution. First, a President’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his lawfully elected successor is the paradigmatic example of conduct that should not be immunized, even if other conduct should be. The severity, range, and democracy-damaging nature of the alleged crimes are unique in American history.
A "radical suggestion"
In his argument, the special prosecutor points out that "no presidential power at issue in this case entitles the President to claim immunity from the general federal criminal prohibitions supporting the charges: fraud against the United States, obstruction of official proceedings, and denial of the right to vote." For Smith, "the Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts."
Smith noted that Trump "suggests that unless a criminal statute expressly names the President, the statute does not apply. That radical suggestion, which would free the President from virtually all criminal law — even crimes such as bribery, murder, treason, and sedition — is unfounded," the letter says.
The Supreme Court has set April 25 as the date to hear oral arguments of the parties, and Smith wants to avoid at all costs that the case for electoral interference is delayed beyond the Presidential elections in November and prevent a hypothetical Trump victory that would end the case.
It is not the first time that the special prosecutor has tried to pressure the judges in the cases against Trump in which he participates. Last week, Smith attacked Judge Cannon, who is handling the Mar-a-Lago papers case, and even hinted that he might try to remove her, prompting the former president to call on Truth Social for him to be sanctioned.
