Special Counsel Urges Supreme Court to Proceed with Trial in Trump Election Subversion Case
In a dramatic turn of events, Special Counsel Jack Smith has urged the Supreme Court to proceed with the trial in the election subversion case against former President Donald Trump. Smith’s plea comes in response to Trump’s emergency request to pause proceedings and appeal a decision that denied him the ability to claim presidential immunity.
Smith wasted no time in making his case, emphasizing the gravity of the charges against Trump. “The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy,” he told the Supreme Court. “A president’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law.”
The special counsel’s response, filed ahead of schedule, highlights his eagerness to swiftly move to trial. Smith argued that Trump cannot meet the standard required to block the lower court’s ruling and emphasized the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict. “Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict,” Smith wrote.
Smith further requested that if the court orders a delay, it should consider it as an appeal and set the case for expedited briefing and argument. He proposed that the arguments take place next month.
To support his arguments, Smith drew heavily on history, quoting from Alexander Hamilton and other founding-era leaders. He aimed to establish the idea that presidents should be held accountable for their conduct, noting that Trump was unable to point to any suggestion of absolute immunity from the Founding Era. Smith asserted that this underscored “how remote the possibility is that this court will agree with his unprecedented legal position.”
The DC Circuit’s unanimous opinion last week allowed Trump to face charges for actions he took to subvert the 2020 election, dismissing his claims of presidential immunity. Trump’s subsequent request to temporarily block that decision and appeal it directly to the Supreme Court is now at the center of the legal battle.
The timing of the Supreme Court’s handling of Trump’s request is critical. As the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, Trump would benefit from delaying the trial until after the November election. On the other hand, Smith is eager to ensure a prompt trial.
Chief Justice John Roberts has given Smith until February 20 to respond to Trump’s emergency request. Following Smith’s response, Trump is expected to file a reply, and the justices will make a decision on how to proceed in a short period, likely within a few days.
“The public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former president is charged with conspiring to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office,” Smith emphasized to the court.
As this high-stakes legal battle unfolds, the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s decision on whether to proceed with the trial or grant Trump temporary immunity. The outcome will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for future presidents and their accountability for their actions in office.
