In a document challenging the former president’s request to the Supreme Court to postpone his trial while he files an appeal seeking total immunity, Special Counsel Jack Smith pounded the former president Donald Trump.
At a startling appeals court session five weeks prior, Trump’s legal team contended that a president could direct SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent without being prosecuted if he was first impeached and found guilty.
Last Tuesday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated Trump’s appeal in a 57-page ruling. The scathing ruling’s clarity and ferocity took many commentators by surprise. They gave Trump until February 12th to submit an appeal notice, failing which the DC lawsuit will move forward.
On Monday, Trump’s team filed an appeal with the Supreme Court demanding they stay the Jan. 6 trial being presided over by Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Smith had until Feb. 20 to file a response, which he did six days early. In a forty-page response filed Wednesday, Smith dissected every one of Trump’s arguments and took every opportunity to blast Trump over the crimes he is charged with committing.
Special Counsel Smith set the tome in the very first paragraph:
The Special Counsel, on behalf of the United States, respectfully submits this opposition to the application for a stay of the mandate of the court of appeals pending the filing and disposition of applicant’s forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari. The stay should be denied because of applicant’s failure to meet this Court’s settled standards. The application stems from an indictment returned by a grand jury against applicant, a former President of the United States, charging him with federal crimes committed in an alleged effort to perpetuate himself in power and prevent the lawful winner of the 2020 Presidential election from taking office. The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy. 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. Applicant seeks a stay to prevent proceedings in the district court from moving towards trial, which the district court had scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024, before applicant’s interlocutory appeal necessitated postponement of that date. Applicant cannot show, as he must to merit a stay, a fair prospect of success in this Court.
Smith’s filing goes on to attack all of Trump’s arguments in much the same way that Tuesday’s amici brief from Michael Luttig and others did, says a delay could be “fatal” to achieving a “just outcome, and concludes by giving the Supreme Court two options:
“The application for a stay of the mandate should be denied. Alternatively, the Court should treat the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and order expedited briefing and argument.”
The Supreme Court could decide to hear the case on an expedited basis, grant Trump’s demand to take it up under the normal course of business, or deny cert and affirm the appeals court ruling.
