Special Prosecutor Urges Supreme Court to Reject Trump’s Exemption Claim
On April 8, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith argued before the court that President Trump’s demands for exemption were not in line with the constitution, national history, or the American people’s understanding that presidents can be held accountable to the law.
Smith stated, “The framers of the constitution never endorsed criminal immunity for a former president, and all presidents from the founding period to the modern era know that after leaving office, they may face criminal liability for their actions while in office.”
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on April 25 and is expected to reach a decision by July. Trump will respond to Smith’s request in writing next week.
In a previous written submission, Trump argued that future presidents would be susceptible to “blackmail and extortion in practice while in office” if the court denied his exemption. He also suggested that past presidents may have been subject to prosecution for all controversial actions taken while in office.
Prosecutor Smith refuted that argument in his latest submission, stating, “The effective execution of the presidential duty does not require a former president to be exempt from federal criminal charges. On the contrary, the fundamental principle of our constitutional order is that no one stands above the law – including the president.”
In his earlier submission, the Republican presidential candidate for 2024 presented an alternative timeline for the judges, aiming to postpone the trial until after the November election if they did not agree with his exemption claim.
Under this scenario, the Supreme Court could remand the case to a lower court for further proceedings. This could lead to a months-long delay to determine whether any grounds for exemption could apply to Trump.
Smith outright dismissed the argument that the case could be postponed for those reasons. He asserted that if the Supreme Court found former presidents entitled to certain exemptions, the case would be sent back to the lower court, and Trump could be tried for his personal actions.
Smith believes that Trump’s suggestion “implies that if criminal law does not explicitly refer to the president, that law does not apply to the president. This proposition – which would absolve the president of almost all criminal laws, including crimes such as bribery, murder, treason, and insurrection – is baseless.”
According to CNN, Business Today
