Podcast Summary
Former presidents are not above the law: A former president cannot use their office as a shield from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in power, even if those actions relate to maintaining power after an election.
A former president, such as Donald Trump, cannot claim absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office, even if those actions relate to remaining in power after losing an election. Special Counsel Jack Smith's answering brief in Trump's appeal argues that the presidency's role in our constitutional system does not outweigh the importance of holding individuals accountable for criminal acts, particularly those that undermine the democratic process. The brief emphasizes that separation of powers, constitutional text, history, and precedent all support the prosecution of a former president for criminal conduct committed during their time in office. The defendant's immunity claim, according to the brief, could potentially encourage presidents to commit crimes to maintain their power, which the Founders never intended. The Article 3 courts provide safeguards to protect against any potential burdens on the presidency.
DC Circuit Court should expeditiously affirm denial of Trump's motion to dismiss: The DC Circuit Court should uphold the denial of Trump's claim of absolute presidential immunity, based on separation of powers principles and constitutional text, without requiring dismissal in this case.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals should expeditiously affirm the district court's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment, as the defendant's claims of absolute presidential immunity from federal criminal prosecution are not supported by the separation of powers analysis or constitutional text. The special counsel's brief argues that historical practice and other immunity doctrines also do not support Trump's claim. Even if separation of powers principles limited the federal prosecution of a former president in some circumstances, they would not require dismissal in this case. The stakes are high, as this case has significant implications for the democratic and constitutional foundation of our republic. The document outlining these arguments, filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith, is expected to be a landmark in US history.
Court decisions in Meadows and Blasingame cases impact Trump investigation: The 11th and DC Circuit Courts' rulings in Meadows and Blasingame cases support Special Counsel Smith's argument that absolute presidential immunity does not apply to criminal cases for former presidents, and Trump's conduct regarding the 2020 election is not protected.
The recent legal decisions in the Blasingame and Meadows cases, as discussed on Midas Touch and our legal AF podcast, are significant for Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into former President Trump. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Meadows established that Mark Meadows was not acting under federal authority when interfering in elections, while the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Blasingame determined that Trump's conduct relating to the 2020 election fell outside the absolute presidential immunity doctrine recognized in civil cases. These decisions support Special Counsel Smith's argument that absolute presidential immunity does not apply in criminal cases for former presidents, and that Trump's conduct is beyond the scope of any possible immunity. The split decisions in these cases, with differing political appointments on the panels, highlight the complexity and nuance of these legal issues.
A former president's immunity doesn't halt a criminal prosecution: Despite a former president's potential immunity, a criminal prosecution can still proceed. An acquittal in an impeachment trial doesn't bar this, and broad immunity theories could grant immunity for serious crimes, but the president's conduct must fall outside their official duties if 'Blasting Game' holds.
That even if a former president may have some form of immunity from criminal prosecution, it does not prevent a prosecution from moving forward. Special Counsel Jack Smith argued against dismissal, stating that an acquittal in an impeachment trial also does not bar this prosecution. Smith further emphasized that a broad immunity theory could potentially grant a president immunity for criminal conduct related to bribery, selling nuclear secrets, or even ordering the murder of political enemies, as these actions could be argued to be within their official duties. The indictment brought by Smith alleges conspiracies to advance a candidate's prospect, and in cases where "Blasting Game" holds, the president's conduct falls outside the scope of their official duties if it is only understood as having been undertaken in their capacity as a candidate for reelection.
Former President Faces Criminal Prosecution: Setting Precedents and Challenging the Role of the Presidency: A former president can be prosecuted for crimes committed in office, but the implications for the presidency and the separation of powers are significant and uncharted.
The ongoing legal proceedings against a former president for crimes committed in office challenges historical precedents and raises important questions about the separation of powers and the role of the presidency in the criminal justice system. According to the special counsel, a former president is not immune from criminal prosecution, despite the uncharted territory this case represents. In contrast, the former president's legal team argues that such a prosecution would set a dangerous precedent and potentially undermine the integrity of the presidency. The debate underscores the significance of the case and its potential implications for the future of American democracy.
Trump's Legal Battle Heads to Supreme Court: Trump's legal battle over documents and testimony related to the Capitol riot is heading to the Supreme Court, with potential arguments and a decision in early 2023.
Former President Trump is not immune from legal proceedings, as Special Counsel Jack Smith's powerful filing in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals makes clear. The next steps include Trump's ability to file a reply on January 2nd, followed by oral arguments on January 9th. If the Supreme Court then accepts the petition for certiorari, which is expected, the case could potentially reach the highest court in the land. At Midas Touch, we believe in upholding the rule of law and demanding justice and accountability. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story, and consider showing your support for our pro-democracy message by visiting store.midastouch.com to purchase Convict 45 merchandise.
