Case Against Trump Is Partisan

The attorneys general filed an amicus brief suggesting the prosecution’s timing is meant to derail the former president’s reelection campaign.

“Amici States represent broad swaths of the public, millions of Americans who are concerned by the prosecution’s zeal to try President Trump before the upcoming presidential election,” wrote the attorneys representing Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

“Prosecutors purport to represent the People, but their approach toward President Trump suggests ulterior motives,” they argued. “The Court should take seriously the risk that exposing former Presidents to criminal liability will enable partisan abuse.”

“If he had not been President, none of this would be happening,” the attorneys argued, listing several cases brought against President Trump, including the one before the Supreme Court prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith.

Mr. Smith has charged President Trump with four counts of obstruction and conspiracy for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, and the amici attorneys question why the Department of Justice waited so long to bring this case if not for political reasons.  They noted that Mr. Smith was appointed days after President Trump announced his candidacy.

After the alleged delay before indictment, prosecutors then rushed the case, the attorneys argued.

“No criminal defendant but this one is forced to brief a novel constitutional issue in a few weeks, to oppose a petition for certiorari before judgment, to forgo en banc review, and more,” the brief reads.

“The prosecution’s failure to explain its extraordinary haste suggests one troubling answer: That the timing of the prosecution is designed to inflict maximum damage on President Biden’s political opponent before the November 2024 election.”

The appeals court had opined that the threat of partisan prosecution would be rare, because prosecutors have “ethical obligations not to initiate unfounded prosecutions,” and therefore the risk to former presidents being “unduly harassed by meritless federal criminal prosecutions appears slight.”

Amici attorneys argued the current situation President Trump faced showed that risk was “anything but ’slight,’” and the risk was one the Founding Fathers had “frequently worried” about.

Their concerns that “passions and animosities” driving partisan factions would endanger the public good led to the separation of powers, the attorneys argued. Presidential immunity is necessary to preserve that balance, and impeachment holds them accountable to the people, they added.

The appeals court compared presidents to jurors who may fear recrimination after passing a verdict.

“But the comparison is utterly inapt. What is the baseline risk that a prosecutor would target a juror for personal or political gain? The court did not say,” the amici attorneys argued, adding that the sheer visibility of a president and his decisions makes him an “easily identifiable target.”

Read more…