In a recent filing, special counsel Jack Smith vehemently opposed former President Donald Trump's assertion of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Smith argued that such a sweeping claim would "threaten to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office." The response comes ahead of oral arguments scheduled for January 9 at the US appeals court in Washington, DC.

Smith's filing directly challenges Trump's immunity claim in the federal election subversion case, asserting that it is the former president's refusal to be held accountable for allegedly engaging in criminal means to retain power after losing the election that poses a significant threat to democratic and constitutional foundations. Smith emphasized that a prompt resolution of the case is in the public's and Trump's compelling interest.

The federal election subversion case against Trump comprises four counts, including conspiring to defraud the United States and obstruct an official proceeding. While the former president has pleaded not guilty, pre-trial proceedings were temporarily halted pending his appeal of the district court judge's ruling that he is not entitled to immunity for potential crimes committed while in office.

Initially scheduled to begin on March 4, Trump's legal team has repeatedly urged for the trial to be held after the 2024 presidential election in November. Trump's fight over immunity claim has further underscored these efforts. However, both the special counsel and the trial judge have deemed these arguments as lacking credibility.

Smith's filing on Saturday warned of the extreme danger associated with granting a former president such broad immunity. According to the filing, Trump's proposed immunity theory would shield a president from criminal prosecution even in cases where they accept bribes, plant incriminating evidence on political enemies, order acts of violence against critics, or sell nuclear secrets to foreign adversaries.

Moreover, Smith addressed Trump's argument that criminal prosecution would constitute double jeopardy since he was previously acquitted by the Senate during impeachment proceedings. Smith stated that a former president does not possess the sweeping immunity Trump advocates, therefore the denial of his motion to dismiss should be upheld, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

While Trump has sought the DC appeals court's intervention to overturn the lower-court ruling rejecting his immunity claims, the Supreme Court declined to expedite the case as requested by Smith.

The special counsel's arguments to the appeals court also tackled Trump's use of potential delays to his benefit. In a unique request, prosecutors asked for the court's ruling to be implemented five days following the decision, which would compel Trump's team to pursue further appeals promptly if the Department of Justice prevails at this level.

Significantly, the resolution of the questions raised in this appeal by higher courts is crucial before Trump's trial can proceed. Due to his rights as a criminal defendant, the appeals process typically takes months. However, this particular appeal is moving relatively quickly, with prosecutors already convincing the appeals court to expedite the case.

As the oral arguments loom, the outcome of the appeal and its potential impact on Trump's trial date remain uncertain, with the fate of these significant legal proceedings yet to be determined.