On Wednesday, the ex-president expressed dissatisfaction at special counsel Jack Smith’s decision to ask the Supreme Court to determine whether Trump is immune from prosecution due to presidential immunity.
Trump’s legal team claimed earlier this month in an appeal that since his purported attempts to rig the 2020 election were a part of his official responsibilities, he is exempt from punishment. In an apparent attempt to expedite the proceedings, Smith leapfrogged the appellate court and submitted an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, requesting the justices to rule on the subject.
At a Wednesday event in Iowa, Trump said, “Now they’re saying, ‘Let’s rush it to the Supreme–we gotta rush it, rush it, rush it.” “They might have begun as long as three years ago. Nothing changed; everything remained the same. Three years ago was their opportunity to begin, but they chose not to. They only recently began using this garbage.
As the Supreme Court is not the one under indictment and cannot decide on Trump’s guilt, Trump’s claim that “they’re fighting like hell because they want to try and get a guilty plea from the Supreme Court” is untrue.
But since that’s the only way they can win the election, they want to obtain that. It’s really sick,” Trump exclaimed.
The former president’s latest actions indicate that his filings in the D.C. case are a “delay game,” according to former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, who made this explanation on a portal.
She remarked, “And this is how we know that and there can be no questions, not that there were.” “Trump made a move to have the allegations against him dismissed on the basis of his invulnerability, and now we have him before the court of appeals pleading with them to “wait a second, don’t rule on my motion too fast.” There’s no need to rush it.
Here, let’s take our time. Naturally, a criminal defendant who is facing an indictment and has filed a strong move to have the charges dismissed would like to have the decision made on the motion as soon as feasible. Indeed, this is a game of delay. Even Trump is aware that his request for immunity is futile.
Smith’s choice to bypass the appeals court and go directly to the Supreme Court was hailed by former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman as a “masterful move” that is “likely to upend Trump’s chief strategy of delaying” the trial.
The conventional strategy would advise holding firm while pressuring Trump to take the matter up with higher courts. However, Smith came to the realization that Trump could drag out the review procedure by going through all the motions, which would keep the Supreme Court from hearing the case in time to allow for a trial before the election in November, Litman said in a piece for the Los Angeles Times.
He cited former deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben, a former member of special counsel Bob Mueller’s team who filed the Supreme Court appeal on behalf of Smith’s team, saying, “So the special counsel wisely decided to jump ahead.”
In response to Smith’s filing, the Supreme Court mandated that Trump’s team respond by next Wednesday. Litman referred to this as “warp speed by the court’s standards.”
He wrote: “In fact, the court might welcome Smith’s motion. It’s a promising sign for Smith that the Supreme Court jumped on the question with the urgency the special counsel advocated.” Should the immunity issue arise at a later date, they would address it in the aftermath of the election.
Although Trump was president of the United States on January 6, an appeals court said earlier this month that he is not immune from lawsuits from victims of the attack. Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann was also a member of Mueller’s team.
“So, that is not something within the function of the White House office if you are committing crimes as part of your campaign to stay in office,” Weissmann told reporters, adding that the decision “bodes very well for Jack Smith, and not so good, obviously, for Donald Trump.”
He went on, “You know, it really cannot be the case that you can kill somebody or just decide to— could you imagine what this would mean?” simply because you are the president of the United States. Can the president—who was informed, incidentally, that he had complete immunity from prosecution while in office—really serve a second term? simply isn’t possible.”