Trump’s attorneys argue that his actions to declare himself the winner in the 2020 presidential contest were on behalf of the nation, not himself, according to Missouri-based lawyer John Sauer and other members of his legal team. They claim that the indictment against Trump is unlawful and unconstitutional, stating that the Judicial Branch cannot judge a President’s official acts. Trump’s appeal not only aims to prevail in the appeals court but also to delay the case against him, causing uncertainty about the trial date. Smith, who is handling the case, is seeking urgent consideration from the courts due to the intense public interest in resolving it in 2024. However, the Supreme Court declined Smith’s plea for expedited action, leaving the matter with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Smith is also requesting a speedy resolution.
Unlike the Supreme Court, the three-judge appeals court panel assigned to the case agrees with Smith’s urgency claims. They have set tight deadlines, with oral arguments scheduled for January 9. If the judges rule in Smith’s favor, the case could return to the Supreme Court next month. Trump’s brief requests that if the panel rules against him, they delay sending the case back to the District Court while he considers seeking review from the full appeals court bench or the Supreme Court, a process that could take up to three months. In contrast to Trump’s claim that the current case should be dismissed entirely, his lawyers argue that former presidents can be criminally prosecuted for their official acts in the unique scenario of impeachment and conviction by the Senate. They assert that Congress did not impeach or convict Trump, thus he has absolute immunity.
One obstacle to Trump’s arguments is President Gerald Ford’s pardon of former President Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal. Since Nixon was never formally impeached or convicted, Trump’s theory suggests that the pardon was unnecessary. However, Trump’s attorneys contend that Ford’s pardon supports their case by reinforcing the tradition against prosecuting presidents.
Once the case returns to Judge Chutkan, she will need to determine if the original trial date is still viable or if a new date is necessary. The timing becomes more complicated as the 2024 general election approaches, especially if Trump maintains his lead in the GOP primary and becomes the party’s nominee. Another potential complication arises from Trump facing trial in Florida on May 20 for charges brought by Smith, accusing him of withholding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving office. However, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon is likely to postpone the trial’s start date due to ongoing discovery considerations. Cannon’s decision, expected in March, could impact Chutkan’s scheduling of a new trial date.
Donald Trump’s attorneys argue that his actions to declare himself the winner of the 2020 presidential election were in the nation’s interest rather than his own. They claim that the indictment against Trump is unlawful and unconstitutional and should be dismissed. Trump’s appeal has halted the criminal proceedings, raising doubts about the trial date. The appeals court panel assigned to the case agrees with the urgency and has set quick deadlines. Trump requests a delay if the panel rules against him, while the prosecution is likely to implement its ruling if they win. The attorneys also assert that former presidents can only be prosecuted for their official acts if they have been impeached and convicted, claiming absolute immunity for Trump. They argue that President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon supports their case. The trial date’s viability and a potential trial in Florida on separate charges may further complicate the case.
Disclaimer: Only the headline and content of this report may have been reworked by Newsearay, staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed. The Article was originally published on Source link
