US: Special Counsel rebuts Trump's immunity claim, warns of threat to democracy

In a court filing on Saturday (Dec 30), US Special Counsel Jack Smith strongly contested former President Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, stating that such a claim "threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office."

Smith's response precedes oral arguments scheduled for January 9 before a US appeals court in Washington, DC, in the federal election subversion case.Ex-President Donald Trump is calling on a federal appeals court to dismiss the federal election subversion criminal case in Washington, DC, asserting that he is shielded by presidential immunity.

In the filing, Smith countered Trump's argument that the prosecution endangers the foundation of the Republic.

He asserted, "To the contrary: it is the defendant’s claim that he cannot be held to answer for the charges that he engaged in an unprecedented effort to retain power through criminal means, despite having lost the election, that threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of our Republic."

Smith urged the court to affirm and expedite the resolution of the case to serve the public and the defendant's interest in a prompt resolution.

Trump, who is facing four counts in the case, has pleaded not guilty.

The federal election subversion case's pre-trial proceedings were temporarily halted pending Trump’s appeal of the district court judge’s ruling that, as a former president, he is not entitled to immunity for potential crimes committed while in office.

Originally set for March 4, the trial date has been a point of contention, with Trump's legal team advocating for a post-2024 presidential election timeline.

Smith, in the Saturday filing, emphasised the dangers of granting a former president broad immunity, stating, "The implications of the defendant’s broad immunity theory are sobering." He warned against a precedent that would shield a president from prosecution for various criminal activities, including bribery, tampering with evidence, ordering violence against critics, or selling national secrets to foreign adversaries, all under the guise of executing presidential duties.

If the appeals court swiftly addresses these arguments, it may maintain the scheduled trial date, resisting efforts to postpone until after the 2024 election.

(With inputs from agencies)