According to Mediaite, former President Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss the case regarding election crimes was fiercely rebuffed by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who discredited Trump’s claims of immunity in a scathing 54-page response filed on Thursday. Dismissing Trump’s argument that he should be granted absolute immunity for actions undertaken during his presidency, Smith firmly asserted that no individual in the country is above the law, citing legal precedence as well as the fundamental principle that the President is subject to federal criminal laws, much like every other American.
Smith bluntly rejected Trump’s attempt to equate his efforts to overturn the election results with the historic speeches of revered former Presidents Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, emphasizing the stark dissimilarities between their momentous addresses and Trump’s alleged fraudulent actions. Smith drew attention to the parallel between Trump’s situation and that of judges, highlighting that while they enjoy certain immunities from civil damages liability, they are not exempt from criminal prosecution, a principle applicable to the former President as well.
In a comprehensive takedown of Trump’s claims, Smith laid out a detailed case, refuting each of the defense’s arguments in support of the motion to dismiss. Ultimately, Smith concluded that the Court should reject Trump’s plea for immunity from criminal prosecution, thus setting the stage for a legal battle of significant consequence. The exchange epitomized the ongoing legal saga surrounding Trump’s alleged misconduct and underscored the critical question of whether a former President can be shielded from the ramifications of criminal charges.
Defendant Donald J. Trump moves to dismiss the indictment, asking the Court to afford him absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for what he expansively claims was official conduct during his presidency. ECF No. 74 (“Mot.”). That novel approach to immunity would contravene the fundamental principle that “[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law.” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882).
The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens. None of the sources the defendant points to in his motion—the Constitution’s text and structure, history and tradition, or Supreme Court precedent—supports the absolute immunity he asks the Court to create for him.
In staking his claim, he purports (Mot. 29) to draw a parallel between his fraudulent efforts to overturn the results of an election that he lost and the likes of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and George Washington’s Farewell Address. These things are not alike.
The more apt parallel the defendant identifies (Mot. 17-18) is to judges, who, like a former president, enjoy absolute immunity from civil damages liability for certain conduct but who are “subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens.” Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 31 (1980). The same is true for the defendant. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment based upon presidential immunity should be denied.
The tradition of Presidents making public statements on matters of national concern arose in the first days of the Presidency and encompasses some of the most historic Presidential actions in American History, including George Washington’s Farewell Address and Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. President Theodore Roosevelt described the Presidency as a “bully pulpit” for advancing policy views on matters of public concern. When a President speaks to the public on matters of public concern— especially issues of uniquely federal concern, like federal elections—those statements fall in the heartland of his or her official duties.
