Special counsel Jack Smith recently made a compelling argument before the Supreme Court, urging them to dismiss Donald Trump's assertions of broad immunity and to proceed with a trial on charges related to his alleged attempts to undermine the 2020 election results.
Smith emphasized that Trump's stance lacks any constitutional basis, historical precedent, or public perception that presidents are exempt from legal accountability. He pointed out that even if the court acknowledges some level of immunity for former presidents, certain actions by Trump could be considered private conduct rather than official acts, making them subject to prosecution.
According to Smith, the framers of the Constitution never intended to grant criminal immunity to former presidents. Throughout American history, presidents have understood that they could face legal consequences for their actions once out of office.
This case has become a focal point of the current Supreme Court term, with significant implications. A ruling in favor of Trump could not only impact the election subversion charges but also affect numerous other criminal allegations pending against him.
