Former President Donald Trump is making a last-ditch effort to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to delay his failed federal election case while he appeals questions about whether he is immune from prosecution for alleged crimes while in office.
In a 16-page filing, the former president's lawyers immediately accused special counsel Jack Smith of bias and urged the high court to reject Trump's request in a filing earlier Wednesday.
“As before, there is no mystery about the special counsel's motivation,” his legal team wrote. “Commentators across the political spectrum are pointing to the obvious—the special counsel is trying to impeach President Trump and President Trump is the front-runner against President Biden before the November election.”
They argued that Smith's Wednesday filing “raises a compelling inference of a political motive” — to destroy Trump's candidacy — and contravenes the Justice Department's “longstanding” ban on prosecuting their cases to interfere with elections. (There is no evidence that Smith's office or any of the other lawyers involved in Trump's three other criminal cases were politically motivated.)
“Pursuing that partisan motivation twists the Special Counsel into logical knots, as he now pleads with this Court. No Two months ago, he begged the court to decide the issues,” they wrote.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on Trump's emergency request in the coming days. If it rejects the report, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan can set a schedule to restart the proceedings. Earlier it was announced that the trial will begin on March 4.
Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to kick Kane down the road, with Smith's response filed two days after it was filed, six days ahead of the deadline set by Chief Justice Samuel Alito. The former president's bid to delay his trial was unanimously ruled on February 6 by a three-judge appeals panel that he did not have presidential immunity.
“For purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump becomes a naturalized Trump, with all the protections of any other criminal defendant, the panel wrote at the time.
