Jack Smith

A filing submitted by Donald Trump's lawyers imploring the Supreme Court to delay ruling on whether he was covered by presidential immunity while committing alleged crimes was dismantled by a former U.S. Attorney who said it seemed to have been dictated by the former president in a way that damages its credibility.

On her Substack platform, ex-U-S. Attorney Joyce Vance agreed that the arguments proposed by the former president's lawyers are not "frivolous" ones, but their brief contains an assortment of arguments that lack the seriousness expected in a filing submitted to the nation's highest court.

With special counsel Jack Smith pushing the court to expedite a hearing that would allow U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Tanya Chutkan to maintain her trial schedule, the former president would rather they take their time and kick the can down the road past the 2024 presidential election.

According to Vance, "... ultimately, the cuteness and the conclusory suggestion that the 'Special Counsel identifies no compelling reason for haste' when the defendant, a potential presidential candidate, is the party who has filed these motions and asked for the indictment against him to be dismissed, falls flat."

Taking up a Trump legal team claim that "in 234 years of American history, no President ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts,” the former prosecutor shot back, "That, of course, is not a fair criticism of the prosecution. It simply reflects that Trump is the first president in those 234 years to try to interfere with the transfer of power following an election. It’s not the point in Trump’s favor that his lawyers seem to think it is."

"The tone of Trump’s brief is far more snide that what you typically see in appellate argument, and probably far less combative than what Trump would have liked, particularly when they argue that the prosecution is a political attack," she continued before concluding, "Letting the client dictate the arguments that make it into a brief can damage the arguments overall credibility, and there’s some sense that happens here."

You can read more here.