In a recent court filing, Special Counsel Jack Smith has pushed back against former President Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity. Smith argues that granting a former president absolute immunity from criminal prosecution could potentially encourage future presidents to commit crimes to remain in office. The filing comes just days before oral arguments are set to start in the federal election interference case before the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Despite facing various legal challenges, including being disqualified from holding public office in some states, Trump's team is expected to file appeals in response to these decisions. Two states have already removed Trump from their primary ballots based on the constitutional ban on insurrectionists holding office, and Oregon is currently considering a similar decision. The Secretary of State in Oregon, a Democrat, is requesting the court to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. Trump argues that having a candidate on the ballot in some states and not others could lead to confusion, chaos, and a constitutional crisis.
The appeals process for the federal case related to the January 6th events is currently underway. The trial has been put on hold until the appeal is resolved. The Supreme Court declined to intervene at this stage and opted to let the appeals process play out. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will ultimately take up the case. However, the outcome could have significant implications for the 2024 election.
In regard to Trump's ballot eligibility, the Supreme Court is likely to weigh in on the issue. The Colorado Republican Party, as well as Trump himself, are expected to appeal decisions removing him from the primary ballot in Colorado and Maine, respectively. The Colorado GOP has posed several questions to the Supreme Court, including whether the ban on insurrectionists holding office applies to presidents and who is responsible for enforcing it. Additionally, they question whether denying a political party the ability to choose a candidate for the primary ballot violates its First Amendment rights.
Furthermore, recent revelations have shed light on the so-called fake elector plot. This scheme involved the introduction of fake certificates for Vice President Mike Pence to consider during the certification of the electoral count. While one version of the plan was legally acceptable, the other two involved pressuring Pence to reject the certified results or declare a tie, both of which would have been problematic. The recent reporting indicates internal disagreements regarding the nature of the plot, potentially incriminating certain individuals.
Looking ahead, Trump faces a series of trials, including the Mar-a-Lago document trial and a state prosecution in New York. The Mar-a-Lago case, which alleges obstruction, poses the greatest threat to Trump, as it could potentially survive an appeal if proven. However, it is important to note that all the cases he faces have their own legal and factual challenges that could be subject to vigorous appeals.
As Trump's legal battles continue into the new year, the ramifications of the pending court decisions and their impact on his political future remain uncertain.
