US: Trump’s legal team requests extension of deadline to respond to Jack Smith’s immunity brief
US: Responding to special counsel Jack Smith’s immunity brief, former President Donald Trump’s legal team has asked a deadline extension until beyond November’s election.
On Wednesday U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan partially unsealed Smith’s 165-page file. The paper makes the argument for why the federal 2020 election interference case should proceed with the Supreme Court’s decision providing Trump at least presumed immunity from prosecution for any actions while in office.
The attorneys of the former president have requested a five-week extension until November 21 from the U.S. District Court of Columbia so they may respond to the most recent documents made by federal prosecutors.
Smith’s pleadings claimed Trump’s conduct in the run-up to the January 6 attack in 2021 were those of a candidate, not official acts of the president. Conversations with his closest circle, according to prosecutors, let Trump know he had lost the 2020 election; still, he still “resorted to crimes” to stay in office in a personal capacity.
The immunity finding of the Supreme Court threatens to reverse Smith’s inquiry on federal election obstruction. Smith’s office modified several claims to fit the Supreme Court’s ruling, while filing a superseding indictment in August with the same four counts Trump claimed not guilty against.
The legal team for Trump said that because the former president must have “equal opportunity to submit and address facts bearing on immunity, and to rebut the Special Counsel’s misleading submissions,” thus it should be let to provide a 180-page rebuttal to Smith’s papers.
The request for a deadline extension stated that the courts had already allowed Smith’s office extensions to deadlines to submit their answers and legal arguments in the matter.
Trump’s attorneys also asked Smith’s team to submit a response to their intended November 21 filing by December 5.
According to Smith’s immunity brief, many talks Trump had with his closest circle show the former president knew he had lost the 2020 race but still tried to reverse the outcome in his advantage.
“The defendant argues that because his illegal plan included official behavior, he is exempt from punishment for overturning the 2020 presidential election. Not so,” the prosecutors said.
“While the defendant was the current President throughout the accused schemes, his approach was essentially personal. Working with a group of private co-conspirators, the defendant sought several criminal means to disrupt, via fraud and dishonesty, the government function by which votes are gathered and counted, a function in which he, as President, had no official role.”
Trump said of Smith’s brief on Truth Social, “falsehood-ridden, unconstitutional,” sent in reaction to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s “disastrous” vice presidential debate performance.
Syracuse University law professor David Driesen stated that should the presidential immunity case wind up before the Supreme Court, the conservative justices would “protect” Trump once again.
“The Supreme Court is very at ease currently constructing legal arguments to reach predefined results. The immunity ruling itself is a shining illustration of that. Driesen told Newsweek that most of the justices would likely find a means to completely eliminate the indictment from the January 6 case.
“The greatest indicator of how the Supreme Court will decide on any particular matter used to be doctrine and precedent. That is hardly a good indicator, however, of what this court will do. Rather, one should pay close attention to the political views of the judges as they reveal their ruling behavior.
Should Trump prevail in his contest against Vice President Kamala Harris, he might command the Department of Justice to halt the federal probe of him upon inauguration in January 2025.
