Jack Smith just tore apart Trump’s 'startling' absolute immunity argument

Special Counsel Jack Smith eviscerated former President Donald Trump's claim to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution in a blistering 54-page filing on Thursday.

Smith and his team filed the document in US District Court on Thursday in response to the claim from Trump's legal team earlier this month that he should be immune from all criminal prosecution in relation to the January 6 insurrection, since he was acting within his duties as president at the time to safeguard federal elections. Politico reported that Jack Smith's filing countered Trump's immunity claim by citing multiple prosecutions of presidents including Trump's 2021 impeachment trial, the civil suit against former President Bill Clinton, the pardon of Richard Nixon, and even the prosecution of former Vice President Aaron Burr.

“The implications of the defendant’s unbounded immunity theory are startling,” the filing read. “It would grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for a lucrative government contract for a family member; a president who instructs his FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a president who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.”

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Smith's team further argued that Trump's actions to influence states to alter election results were political in nature, and thus not related to his presidential duties.

"“Throughout American history, there have been federal criminal prosecutions of high-ranking officials from all three branches of the federal government — including the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, Senators, Representatives, and judges — as well as of governors, mayors, sheriffs, and more,” prosecutors argued. “Far from chilling public officials in the exercise of their duties, these prosecutions have helped ensure that officials and citizens alike know that ours is a system based on the rule of law, applicable without fear or favor to even the most powerful public officials.”

Notably, Smith's filing bolstered its central argument by citing Judge Tanya Chutkan's 2021 ruling that Trump could not argue executive privilege to shield his presidential documents from the January 6 committee.

"Presidents are not kings," Chutkan wrote at the time.

Read the full text of Jack Smith's filing here.

READ MORE: Jack Smith says there is 'no reason' to grant Trump's delay request in Mar-a-Lago documents trial