Read on Twitter
Jack Smith responds to Trump’s motions and explains why they fail as a matter of law. THREAD /1 washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/…
First Amendment provides no protection for speech that amounts to crimes of deceipt, receipt, conspiracy. Non-starter. /2
Due process clause provides fair notice of criminal conduct. Trump argues he received no fair notice because no one has ever been charged with this scheme before. No one has ever committed this scheme before! /3
Trump argues double jeopardy clause prohibits this case because he was already acquitted by Senate in impeachment proceeding. Impeachment and criminal prosecution are apples and oranges. No “jeopardy” for impeachment because no prison results. /4
Trump argues selective prosecution, which means treating similarly situated defendants differently. Again, no one is similarly situated. /5
Trump argues he is being vindictively prosecuted. But that means being treated more harshly in retaliation for exercising a legal right. It comes up, for instance, when a defendant is sentenced to more time after a successful appeal. Vindictive prosecution does not apply here. /6
Finally, Trump has argued he is immune from prosecution as president. To extent immunity covers criminal cases (maybe), it applies only to conduct within the scope of presidential duties. Elections are administered by STATES, clearly outside scope of president’s duties./7
Smith also asks court to decide immunity and double jeopardy motions first because those two are immediately appealable, unlike the other motions, which must wait for appeal until after trial. With prompt work, appeals could be completed before March trial date without delay./END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
