Is Trump ‘immune’ from prosecution? Appeals court to consider major question in election conspiracy case

Sign up for the daily Inside Washington email for exclusive US coverage and analysis sent to your inbox Get our free Inside Washington email Get our free Inside Washington email SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. She also dismissed Mr Trump’s First Amendment defence, arguing that broad speech protections do not include speech “that is used as an instrument of a crime.” What Jack Smith’s team argues Prosecutors argue that Mr Trump relied on knowingly false claims about the election to pressure state officials to approve fraudulent slates of electors to obstruct the certification of the results, then attempted to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse the outcome, and, ultimately, failed to dissuade a mob of his supporters from rioting at the US Capitol on January 6. Following Judge Chutkan’s order, the special counsel’s team went directly to the US Supreme Court to ask justices to quickly decide “whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.” “The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,” Mr Smith’s team wrote to the nation’s highest court. In a final brief to the appeals court, prosecutors argued that Mr Trump’s “desperate attempts to cling to power did not constitute official presidential acts” that Mr Trump claims should be protected against prosecution. What Trump’s team says Attorneys for the former president claim Mr Trump’s actions outlined in federal charges fall under the “outer perimeter” of his official duties as president, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling about presidential immunity in a civil case.