Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed Response Brief on the immunity issue

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Special Counsel Jack Smith did not wait until a hour before the deadline to file this brief.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Here is a link to the filing
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24250214-special-counsel-trump-immunity-filing-dc-circuit-12-23-23

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. This brief is aimed at the SCOTUS

Link to tweet

This is aimed at the SCOTUS

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Because of things like this, I think SCotUS will decline to

I think they will receive a judgment from the Appeals Court upholding Chutkan's ruling, and SCotUS will simply decline to hear it, so tRump will have no immunity.

[ShazzieB]

28. That's what I think, too.

[hlthe2b]

2. Their reponse filings are always eloquent and to the point, which I appreciate except for my

urge to just file something of the nature "are you f--king kidding?" Of course, he has no immunity from prosecution any more than any crook/traitor.

But, then I managed to calm down.

[mcar]

8. I wonder if that's how they start out and then translate it to legalese

[MadameButterfly]

20. I can imagine Jack and his team doing just that in private

Maybe cursing up a storm until they get it out of their system so then they can write something productive and worthy of history. I hope someday there's a movie that reveals all. A Few Good Men 2.

[Cha]

3. TY You and Jack Smith!

[ecstatic]

4. When was his response due?

And hopefully all the other judges that know they're going to have to weigh in on this are preparing their briefs now instead of waiting until the last minute.

[onenote]

11. It was due today. And Trump gets to file a reply, due on Jan 2.

The judges (who don't write briefs ) aren't going to issue any decision before Trump files his brief and oral argument is held -- scheduled for January 9.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. This brief was due by midnight

TFG filed his brief last week after 11 PM

[Sneederbunk]

5. Very professional. Not once did he mention that TFG stinks.

[Jarqui]

9. The majority of Americans are already overwhelmed by the foul odor of Trump's position ... nt

[JoseBalow]

17. That's an implied stipulation

No need to be redundant

[lastlib]

19. I'm sure they take, um, "judicial notice".........

They can't help but notice......

I'm having a new-found sympathy for Nancy Pelosi having to sit behind him at SOTU............

[Boomerproud]

6. What an amazing and courageous man, and staff.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

7. Article I, Section 3, last paragraph...

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

I don't see any exception listed for President.

[Ms. Toad]

23. Trump isn't arguing an exception for the president.

He is arguing that "the party convicted shall be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law" means that ONLY hte party convicted shall be liable and subject to indictment, etc.

It is a 6th/7th grade logic failure: The difference betwen "if" and "if and only if"

In other words the implicit language is "if" the party is convicted they shall (also) be "liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law"

Trump is reading it as "if and only if" the party is convicted they shall be "liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law"

In other words, because Trump wasn't convicted by the Senate following his impeachment, he cannot be subject to criminal penalties

Smith handles it nicely textually, historically, with analogy to applicable cases, and to statements made by senators as to why they did not convict (some of whom expressly stated he would be subject to criminal claims). Many of the case citations were to opinions or dissents by current members of the court or conservative predecessors.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

26. Yes, traitortrump's argument is absurd

He argues for a blanket immunity being conferred by being impeached without subsequent conviction, even for offenses not charged in impeachment. If such argument were upheld, he would be free to violate any criminal statute without fear of consequences.

[LaMouffette]

29. Good analysis! Plus, the only reason Trump was not convicted in the Senate was because of the cowardly,

self-serving Repube senators who could not find within themselves a shred of moral integrity to do the right thing and vote to convict him on the impeachment charges. Those senators were the furthest thing imaginable from being impartial in their judgment of Trump.

[malaise]

10. Great news

Go Jack Smith. Lock him up.

[MOMFUDSKI]

12. Just a thought -

Jack and all the other prosecutors are doing their damnedness to get the truth out. If it all gets blocked due to stalling does anyone think they may all start leaking like sieves to get the goods out before the election? I know what I would do.

[Abigail_Adams]

30. I sure hope so.

Time for the Pentagon Papers, vol. 2! Only not the Pentagon this time.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. This brief addresses the extreme danger of giving any POTUS the type of immunity sought by TFG

Link to tweet

[jmowreader]

15. I was thinking of something a little more succinct

1. Many government officials, including presidents, enjoy a grant of immunity against prosecution for official acts performed as part of their duties of office. This Court welcomes this grant.

2. As an example, President Obama, a member of the Democratic Party, directed Naval Special Warfare Development Group, an organization popularly referred to as "SEAL Team 6," to locate and kill Osama bin Laden, who served as the leader of the Al Qaeda terror group. Even if the Republican Party disagreed with his having done this, he would not be liable for prosecution for having done it because the killing of Mr. bin Laden - who engineered the deaths of over 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001 - is considered to be an act in the national interest of the United States.

3. The defendant in this case has filed numerous briefs requesting that the charges currently against him be dismissed because he was President of the United States when he allegedly performed them.

4. This Court cannot imagine that even in some off-label fantasy comic book the acts the Defendant is accused of, which include attempting to overturn an election that he lost using many tactics including having the Capitol Building invaded by an armed mob, would ever be considered an official duty of a United States President.

5. This Court prays that the Defendant's requests be denied and that the trials against him proceed as scheduled.

[Ocelot II]

27. Nope. This thing is likely to go to SCOTUS, and they had to tee up an argument

that included extensive history and all the case law. Succinct isn’t the way the game is played in a case like this, you give them everything. No cracks, no leaks, no wiggle room.

[Takket]

16. i cannot even believe how much time and money is being wasted on litigating this

MIND NUMBINGLY STUPID claim. This should have been tossed in the trash five minutes after drumpf claimed it. Instead this scumbag gets to take this all the way to SCOTUS. Innocent people get convicted every day and never receive anything CLOSE to the amount of appeals/delays that drumpf has received.

[triron]

21. The great American justice system at work.

[spanone]

22. K&R

[Ms. Toad]

24. Excellent, and very thorough, brief.

And it largely cites conservatives currently on the Supreme Court (Kavanaugh) or their conservative predecessors (Scalia, Alito), the Federalist papers, and things which ought to appeal to conservatives to make the point that a former president is not above the law.

[TeamProg]

25. This SHOULD be a "no brainer", but this is USA! USA! USA!

Good grief Charlie Brown.

-yes, it’s like living in a cartoon.

[Wild blueberry]

31. Response Brief is brilliant

Just read it, and continue to be mightily impressed by Jack Smith and his Team.
May justice prevail.
Thank you for posting this.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

32. New Jack Smith court filing dismantles Trump's claim that he should be above our nation's laws

Link to tweet