Breaking Legal News: Special Prosecutor Wants Supreme Court to Move Fast on Trump's Immunity Claim

TLDRSpecial Prosecutor Jack Smith files a 40-page response to Donald Trump's appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Smith argues that there is no reason for the Supreme Court to hear Trump's appeal, as the Washington DC federal court of appeals has already ruled in favor of denying immunity to former presidents. Smith urges the Supreme Court to move as fast as it did in the United States v. Nixon case.

Key insights

🔒Special Prosecutor Jack Smith swiftly responds to Donald Trump's appeal, arguing against the claim of absolute immunity for former presidents.

⚖️The Washington DC federal court of appeals supports the trial judges ruling that there is no immunity from criminal prosecution for former presidents.

⏰Jack Smith requests the Supreme Court to move as fast as it did in the United States v. Nixon case, which led to the end of President Richard Nixon's presidency.

📜Smith's arguments to the Supreme Court mirror those in the appeals court, where every word of his argument was accepted and every word of Trump's argument was rejected.

🗳️The Supreme Court's decision on Trump's appeal will have significant implications for presidential accountability and the rule of law.

Q&A

What is Jack Smith's response to Donald Trump's appeal?

—Jack Smith swiftly files a 40-page response in opposition to Trump's appeal, arguing against the claim of absolute immunity for former presidents.

What does the Washington DC federal court of appeals rule regarding immunity for former presidents?

—The court of appeals supports the trial judges ruling that there is no immunity from criminal prosecution for former presidents.

How does Jack Smith compare Trump's appeal to the United States v. Nixon case?

—Smith requests the Supreme Court to move as fast as it did in the Nixon case, where the unanimous opinion and order by the court ended Nixon's presidency.

What is the significance of the Supreme Court's decision on Trump's appeal?

—The decision will have significant implications for presidential accountability and the rule of law.

What happened in the United States v. Nixon case?

—The case involved a subpoena for audio tapes of Nixon's White House conversations, and the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Nixon, ordering him to comply.

Timestamped Summary

00:00Special Prosecutor Jack Smith files a 40-page response to Donald Trump's appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

01:58The Washington DC federal court of appeals supports the trial judges ruling that there is no immunity from criminal prosecution for former presidents.

04:21Smith's arguments to the Supreme Court mirror those in the appeals court, where every word of his argument was accepted and every word of Trump's argument was rejected.

08:59The Supreme Court's decision on Trump's appeal will have significant implications for presidential accountability and the rule of law.

Browse more