Trump lawyers say ‘Grinch’ Jack Smith trying to rush federal election case
Special counsel accused of trying to ‘keep Christmas from coming’ by asking Supreme Court for quick action on presidential immunity decision
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Lawyers for Donald Trump told a federal appeals court on Wednesday that it should not speed up its consideration of whether the former president is immune from prosecution, accusing federal prosecutors of trying to rush his 2020 election subversion case through before next year’s presidential election.
The issue is of paramount significance to both sides given the potential for a protracted appeal to delay a trial beyond its currently scheduled start date of 4 March 2024 — amid the 2024 presidential primaries.
The former president faces charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election after he lost to Democrat President Joe Biden, and he has denied doing anything wrong. He also faces three other criminal cases in addition to civil cases.
In their filing, the Trump team also accused Special Counsel Jack Smith, whose team has brought two federal cases against Trump in Washington and in Florida, of being like the fictional character the Grinch from the Dr Seuss children’s books in his attempts to spoil their Christmas.
The attorneys wrote that keeping the current schedule intact would require attorneys and support staff to work round-the-clock through the holidays, inevitably disrupting family and travel plans.
“It is as if the Special Counsel growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming, ‘I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming. … But how?’” the lawyers wrote, referring to the fictional character who stole Christmas.
While the special counsel’s office is keen to keep the case on track to go to trial in March, the former president’s team is eager for a delay, even asking for the federal case in Washington to be pushed back until 2026.
Such a postponement would benefit Mr Trump as if he is elected president he would have the authority to try and order the Department of Justice to dismiss federal cases — though not those at the state level, such as in Fulton County, Georgia.
In their most recent filing, the former president’s lawyers told the federal appeals court that there was no reason to fast-track the immunity question arguing that the “date of March 4, 2024, has no talismanic significance”.
“Aside from the prosecution’s unlawful partisan motives, there is no compelling reason that date must be maintained, especially at the expense of President Trump and the public’s overriding interest in ensuring these matters of extraordinary constitutional significance are decided appropriately, with full and thoughtful consideration to all relevant authorities and arguments,” they wrote.
At issue is an appeal by the Trump team, filed last week, of a trial judge’s rejection of arguments that he was protected from prosecution for actions he took as president.
Mr Smith sought to short-circuit that process by asking the Supreme Court on Monday to take up the issue during its current term, a request he acknowledged was “extraordinary” but one he said he was essential to keep the case moving forward.
The special counsel’s team simultaneously asked the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to expedite its consideration of Trump’s appeal, writing: “The public has a strong interest in this case proceeding to trial in a timely manner. The trial cannot proceed, however, before resolution of the defendant’s interlocutory appeal.”
Mr Trump’s team argues: “Whether a President of the United States may be criminally prosecuted for his official acts as President goes to the core of our system of separated powers and will stand among the most consequential questions ever decided by this Court.”
The Supreme Court has indicated that it would decide quickly whether to hear the case, ordering Mr Trump’s lawyers to respond by 20 December. The court’s brief order did not signal what it ultimately would do.
While a case in the nation’s highest court can take several months, there are precedents for quick action — forcing President Richard Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes took just two months, and the decision over who won the 2000 election took just a few days.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments