Washington (AP) – Special advocate Jack Smith on Wednesday urged the US Supreme Court to allow former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election intervention case to proceed for testing without more delay.
The prosecutors were already responding to the team’s request in the week, asking for a constant stagnation in the case as the court believes whether the former President is immune to prosecution for official acts in the White House. Two lower courts have rejected the situation from which Trump asked the High Court to intervene.
Case – One of the four criminal prosecutions facing Trump has reached a significant turn, with the next step of the Supreme Court to determine whether Trump tests this year in Washington this year or whether the action is going to be postponed or not to postpone the action with additional arguments of weeks or months.
The trial’s immune appeal is the most important for both sides, already postponed testing date by the immune appeal. The prosecutors want to bring Trump into the trial this year, while the defense lawyers are demanding a delay in their criminal cases. If Trump was to be selected with a pending case, he could exercise his rights as the head of the Executive Branch to order the Department of Justice to dismiss him or try to forgive himself.
While reflecting his desire to move forward quickly, the prosecutors responded to Trump’s appeal within two days, even though the court gave him till next Tuesday.
Although his filing did not clearly mention the upcoming November election or Trump’s position as Republican Primary Front-Runner, the prosecutors described the case as “unique national importance” and said that “the delay in resolving these allegations threatened to disappoint public interest in a quick and fair classification.”
He wrote, “National interest is hypnotized in solving those allegations without further delay.”
Smith’s team accused Trump of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in August, including participating in a plan to disrupt the counting of electoral votes in the run-up on January 6, 2021 when riots in the US Capital, when their supporters gave a storm in a violent clash with the police.
He wrote, “Accused crimes strike at the center of our democracy. To overturn an election, an alleged criminal plan of a president and peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be thwarted.
Trump’s lawyers have argued that he has survived the prosecution for acts falling within his official duties as President – a legally unused argument because no other former President has been convicted.
The trial judge and then a federal appeal court dismissed the arguments with the three-judge appeal panel last week, “We cannot accept that the presidential office has placed its former residents above the law for all the time thereafter.”
The proceedings from Trump’s immune appeal are effectively frozen, with US District Judge Tanya Chutkan canceled the date of the test of March 4, while the appeal court considered the case. No new date has been set.
Trump’s appeal and request to join the Supreme Court can lead to more delay based on Justice deciding. In December, Smith and his team urged Justices to raise and decide the issue of immunity before the appeal court weight.
The Supreme Court options include rejecting the emergency appeal, which will enable Chatakan to resume the test proceedings in the federal court of Washington. The court can also expand the delay while it hears logic on the immune issue. In that event, the schedule of the Justice set may determine how quickly the test can begin, if in fact they agree with the decisions of the lower court that Trump does not immune from the prosecution.
On Wednesday, the prosecutors urged the court to reject Trump’s plea to hear the case, stating that the lower court opinion for the former President “rejects immunity for the former president” How far is the possibility that this court would agree with his unprecedented legal status. ,
But if the court wants to decide the matter, Smith said, Justice should listen to arguments in March and continue the final decision by the end of June.
The prosecutors also pushed back against Trump’s argument that allowing the case to move forward could cool the actions of future presidents, as they can be criminally charged to leave the post and open the door for politically motivated matters against former commanders.
“This diastopian vision runs in our institutions opposite to the check and the remaining amount and the structure of the Constitution,” he wrote. “They ensure the railing that the legal process to determine criminal liabilities will not be captive for ‘political forces’ as an forecast of the applicant.”
Copyright 2024 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material cannot be published, broadcast, re -written or rearranged.
Join our newspaper for the latest news for your inbox