Particular Counsel Jack Smith went fully off the rails and instructed a federal appeals courtroom that Trump’s immunity argument would enable him to order his supporters to homicide opposing lawmakers.
Trump’s legal professionals argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ dedicated whereas he served as US President.
“In 234 years of American history, no president ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists,” Trump’s legal professionals wrote in final month’s submitting, in keeping with CBS News. “To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide.”
Oral arguments within the DC Circuit Courtroom of Appeals start on January 9.
Jack Smith argued Trump will not be immune from prosecution as a result of he may order the homicide of his political opponents or promote nuclear secrets and techniques.
“The implications of the defendant’s broad immunity theory are sobering. In his 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,” in keeping with Jack Smith’s 82-page filing reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.
Jack Smith’s workforce argued that if Trump is protected by the presidential immunity argument, what may cease him from telling his “inciting his supporters during a State of the Union address to kill opposing lawmakers…”
“That approach would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a President who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer; a President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a President who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a President who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, 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,” Jack Smith wrote.
President Trump’s attorneys on Thursday asked the Courtroom to carry Particular Counsel Jack Smith in contempt for violating Decide Chutkan’s order staying all proceedings within the January 6 case towards Trump.
“President Donald J. Trump respectfully moves this Court for an order to show cause why prosecutors Jack Smith, Molly Gaston, and Thomas Windom (collectively, the “prosecutors”) shouldn’t be held in contempt for violating the Courtroom’s order “stay[ing] any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant.” Doc. 186 at 2 (the “Stay Order”).” Trump’s lawyer wrote within the order reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.
“The Stay Order is clear, straightforward, and unambiguous. All substantive proceedings in this Court are halted. Despite this clarity, the prosecutors began violating the Stay almost immediately. First, within five days of the Court entering the Stay Order, the prosecutors served thousands of pages of additional discovery, together with a purported draft exhibit list. Through counsel, President Trump advised that he rejected the prosecutors’ unlawful productions, that their actions violated the Stay Order, and that he would seek relief if their malicious conduct continued.” Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche wrote.
