Legal expert Kim Wehle highlighted Thursday Donald Trump's recent court filing about his actions around 2020 and Jan. 6 in a desperate effort to prove that intervening in the election was part of his role as president.
What's disturbing, she said, is that legitimate lawyers from prominent firms are willing to hang their reputations — and careers —on something like that.
Trump's team produced an anonymous report this week claiming to outline evidence that shows he won the election. It relies heavily on Trump's own people and many of those who lead far-right organizations promoting his policies or ideals.
The final brief to the Supreme Court isn't the same as his conspiracy report, however, and it's unclear if the Trump lawyers would be willing to cite something like that as evidence.
"Before digging into the heap of falsehoods, let’s get this out of the way: Trump’s 'I-was-a-king' immunity argument is utterly unconvincing," explained Wehle, a professor at Baltimore School of Law, in a column for The Bulwark.
"The Constitution says nothing about presidential immunity (unlike immunity for members of Congress), but the Supreme Court has reasonably held that presidents cannot be routinely sued or prosecuted for good-faith decisions made in office, so it has erected a balancing test to protect official presidential acts."
Special counsel Jack Smith's case walks through Trump's tweets about 2020, "contending that the election was tainted by fraud and irregularities;" all communications with the acting attorney general and those at the Justice Department about a plot to declare the election either corrupt or somehow invalid.
There's also the matter of communications with state election officials and others he pressured, as well as the efforts to force then-Vice President Mike Pence to stop the count as the president of the Senate. Smith goes on to walk through the slates of fake electors used in some cases to try and trick Pence from entering the legitimate electors.
"Translation: Trump’s view of the Constitution and the law was the law, regardless of the truth," said Wehle.
ALSO READ: Stiffed: How Trump's campaign visits cost local police departments
Wehle remarked that it has been proven over and over that Trump knew he hadn't won the election but continued to press forward with lying.
She went on to call it "stunning" that after three years, Trump's lawyers are still using the "Big Lie" to justify the ex-president's behavior. Seven licensed attorneys from three law firms are the ones defending the claim.
In the end, Wehle argued that these lawyers should suffer consequences for continuing to perpetuate the "Big Lie."
"It’s time for more lawyers — and not just their disturbed client — to be held accountable by the rule of law for continuing this damaging ruse," she closed.
