Jack Smith tells Supreme Court to keep Trump charges: ‘Framers never endorsed criminal immunity’ – Washington Examiner

Special Counsel Calls on Supreme Court to Reject Trump’s Bid for Presidential Immunity

Special counsel Jack Smith called on the Supreme Court on Monday to reject a bid by Donald Trump to invoke presidential immunity to avoid a trial over an alleged effort to subvert the 2020 election results, saying the “Framers” never intended such privileges for former presidents.

Trump’s Arguments and Smith’s Response

The Supreme Court is poised to weigh Trump’s arguments on April 25 that he should not be prosecuted for acts taken while he was still president, namely Smith’s four-count indictment alleging an effort to upend President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory. Smith told the justices in a court filing that even if they find that former presidents enjoy some form of immunity, at least some of Trump’s actions were “private conduct” and should be prosecuted.

Rejecting Trump’s Claims

Smith took aim at several of Trump’s claims that have been made in an effort to convince the court that he should be immune from charges in the case. He pointed out that Trump “suggests that unless a criminal statute expressly names the President, the statute does not apply.” Smith argued that this suggestion is unfounded, as nearly all federal criminal laws cover all individuals, including the president.

Investigation and Charges Against Trump

Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 to investigate Trump’s alleged role in overturning the last presidential election and mishandling classified documents after leaving office. Trump faces 88 charges across four criminal indictments as he seeks another run for presidential office, and he has pleaded not guilty in each case.

Implications for Future Presidents

Trump filed his own argument in the election interference case, claiming that future presidents would become vulnerable to blackmail and extortion if he is not granted immunity. Smith addressed this claim directly, arguing that the effective functioning of the presidency does not require immunity for former presidents and that they should be held accountable for any alleged violations of federal law.

Possible Trial Delay

Smith also sought to dismiss Trump’s assertion that his case would need to be reanalyzed by a trial court judge if the justices were to find that presidents enjoy some form of immunity. Smith argued that even if the court were to recognize some immunity for a former president’s official acts, the indictment should still proceed because it alleges substantial private conduct in service of Trump’s private aim.

Trump’s Effort to Avoid Trial

Trump’s effort to avoid trial in this federal case is crucial to his attempt to evade any potential conviction ahead of the November 2024 election. If he were to regain the presidency, Trump could seek to dismiss his two federal indictments. However, two federal lower courts have already rejected Trump’s broad claims of presidential immunity.

Upcoming Trial in New York

In addition to the federal case, Trump is preparing to embark on a trial in New York on allegations of falsified business statements related to hush money payments. Jury selection is scheduled to begin on April 15, and Trump has pleaded not guilty in that case.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The issues highlighted in the article revolve around the legal proceedings and potential trial of former President Donald Trump. This is connected to SDG 16, which focuses on promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.

The article discusses the legal arguments and court proceedings related to former President Trump’s potential trial. These targets highlight the importance of promoting the rule of law, ensuring equal access to justice, and developing effective and transparent institutions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for Target 16.3: Number of verified cases of violations of international human rights law and significant violations of international humanitarian law.
• Indicator for Target 16.6: Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services.

The article does not explicitly mention any indicators related to these targets. However, to measure progress towards Target 16.3, the number of verified cases of violations of international human rights law and significant violations of international humanitarian law can be used. For Target 16.6, the proportion of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services can be used as an indicator of effective and accountable institutions.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: washingtonexaminer.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.