[ad_1]
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team dismissed a comparison between former President Donald Trump and Abraham Lincoln in a filing on Thursday, in which they argued Trump does not enjoy “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution.
Prosecutors laid out their case in a 54-page document in response to the 52-page filing by Trump’s lawyers earlier this month that argued he is immune from prosecution because his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election were within the ambit of his official duties as president.
Trump is seeking to have the charges against him in Washington, D.C., dismissed after he was indicted in August and charged with four counts related to alleged attempts to obstruct the 2020 election.
The charges are conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
In their filing, federal prosecutors rejected the idea that Trump’s actions were comparable to those of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
“The defendant is not above the law,” Smith’s team wrote. “He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens.”
“In staking his claim, he [Trump] purports 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,” they wrote in their introduction.
Newsweek has reached out to Trump’s team via email for comment.
The prosecutors argued that Trump’s situation was more comparable 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.'”
Later in the filing, they wrote: “The implications of the defendant’s unbounded immunity theory are startling.”
“It would grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for a lucrative government contract for a family member; a president who instructs his FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a president who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary,” the prosecutors said.
Smith’s team also cited historical examples in making their case, including the pardon issued to President Richard Nixon after he resigned from office in 1974 amid the Watergate scandal and the prosecution of Vice President Aaron Burr, who was acquitted on treason charges in 1807.
In their filing earlier this month, Trump’s attorneys John Lauro and Todd Blanche wrote: “The Constitution, the Supreme Court, and hundreds of years of history and tradition all make clear, the President’s motivations are not for the prosecution or this Court to decide.”
“Rather, where, as here, the President’s actions are within the ambit of his office, he is absolutely immune from prosecution,” they wrote.
[ad_2]
