Former President Donald Trump has described special counsel Jack Smith as “deranged” and a “thug.” His lawyers are now comparing him to the Grinch.
The comparison was made by Trump’s lawyers in a court filing Wednesday in which they unsuccessfully urged the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to deny Smith’s request for an expedited appeal on whether Trump can claim presidential immunity in a criminal case accusing him of illegally attempting to stay in power after his 2020 election loss.
Trump’s attorneys stated in the filing that approving approval on Smith’s suggested schedule “would make President Trump’s opening brief due the day after Christmas.” This proposed timetable will necessitate attorneys and support workers working around the clock throughout the holidays, interrupting family and travel arrangements. “I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming,” the Special Counsel grumbled, his Grinch fingers impatiently drumming. But how?”‘”
- California RESIDENTS To RECEIVE $500 MONTHLY PAYMENTS In New Guaranteed Income Program: Here Is Who Is Eligible
- Us Job Market Booms With 272,000 New Jobs, But Unemployment Rises Slightly To 4.0%
- Credit Scores Of 720+ See Improved Loan Rates This Week
- Examining The Facts: Fact Check On IRS $8700 Stimulus Check Eligibility & Payment Dates
- Gas Prices On Downward Trend As Fourth Of July Road Trips Approach: AAA
That’s an allusion to Dr. Seuss’ classic “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” about a character with a heart two sizes too small who despises the holiday and plans to ruin it.
Smith’s office spokesperson, Peter Carr, declined to comment.
Prosecutors filed their rebuttal to Trump’s legal arguments on Wednesday, claiming that Trump’s attorneys miscalculated and that their filing was due on December 23, not December 26. “In any event, the public’s need for a speedy resolution of these important legal issues takes precedence over personal scheduling issues,” the attorney general stated.
They didn’t bring up Trump’s holiday jab.
The appeals court granted Smith’s plea without explanation in a late Wednesday order. They gave Trump’s lawyers until December 23 to file their brief in the matter, and Smith until December 30 to respond. Trump will then have until January 2 to file a response. Oral arguments will follow at a later date.
That ruling came after the presiding judge in the underlying criminal case, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, paused proceedings until the immunity appeal was resolved.
Trump’s attorneys urged the appeals court not to haste in their Wednesday brief.
“This appeal presents novel, complex, and sensitive questions of profound importance,” they said in their statement. “Whether a President of the United States may be criminally prosecuted for official acts as President goes to the heart of our system of separation of powers and will be one of the most consequential questions ever decided by this Court.” The Court’s cautious and deliberate assessment of these significant matters with the utmost care and effort is clearly in the public interest.”
Trump’s lawyers argued that the only reason Smith sought expedited consideration was to keep the March 4 trial date on track, which the defense claims is unrealistic given the “enormous volume of discovery” in the case and numerous novel legal issues surrounding the prosecution of a former president.
“In this case, the prosecution has one goal: to illegally try, convict, and sentence President Trump before an election in which he is likely to defeat President Biden.” “This is a blatant attempt to meddle in the 2024 presidential election and disenfranchise the tens of millions of voters who support President Trump’s candidacy,” they claimed.
In the lawsuit, Trump has pled not guilty.
In a separate appeal to overturn a gag order that barred Trump from disparaging possible witnesses in the case, his attorneys claimed that the trial should be postponed until after the November election. Last Thursday, a panel of D.C. Court of Appeals judges rejected that idea and found mainly in Smith’s favor.
“Delaying the trial date until after the election, as Mr. Trump proposes, would be counterproductive, create perverse incentives, and unreasonably burden the judicial process,” the court’s decision concluded. “In addition, postponing trial would incentivize criminal defendants to engage in harmful speech as a means of delaying their prosecution,” the justices wrote.
Smith stated in his filing that time is of the essence.
“Expediting the appeal in this case is necessary to vindicate the public’s interest in a timely trial,” Smith’s team argued, adding that it would not preclude “the parties from giving the issues on appeal due consideration.”
In addition to the appeals court, Smith has petitioned the Supreme Court to consider the case directly.
If Trump wins the election in 2024 and the trial is postponed, it will be unclear when he will be tried. At a hearing earlier this month in Georgia on state election tampering allegations, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee asked Trump’s attorney Steve Sadow if Trump would be able to face trial in 2025 if elected in November.
“The answer to that is I believe that under the supremacy clause and his duties as president of the United States, this trial would not take place at all until after he left his term in office,” Sadow said.