Twenty-two state attorneys general have joined an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to accept former President Donald Trump’s appeal of a decision rejecting his presidential immunity claims in Washington.
“Amici States represent millions of Americans, many of whom worry that the timing of this prosecution was calculated to silence or to imprison President [Joe] Biden’s political rival,” the attorneys general said.
“True or not, such fears are deeply corrosive. And by acquiescing in the rush to trial, the courts below have only amplified the perception of impropriety. Denying the stay would greenlight the prosecution to proceed at breakneck speed and to put the apparent frontrunner for the presidency on trial in the lead-up to the election. Granting a stay would calm the fervor, reassure the public, and permit the normal and orderly review of these weighty issues. Properly understood, the public interest demands a stay.”
The 22 attorneys general came from states that had voted for President Trump in the 2020 presidential election. They included Ohio, Florida, Texas, and others.
Loss of ‘Public Trust’
Mr. Smith announced the Justice Department’s Washington indictment of President Trump in August 2023. It’s one of four criminal trials—including another brought by Mr. Smith in Florida—that President Trump is facing during the 2024 presidential election cycle.
They added that it “is evident from the commentary, the media, and even public polling, that the timing of this prosecution has tarnished the Justice Department’s standing in the eyes of the American people. It would further erode that trust for the United States to persist in its rush to trial. A stay, on the other hand, would calm the waters. A stay would give this Court a chance to conduct a normal appellate review and restore some faith in the process.”
Special Counsel: Timing ‘Far From Suspicious’
President Trump previously filed a motion to dismiss, accusing the Biden administration of selective and vindictive prosecution. Judge Chutkan hasn’t ruled on that motion yet, but the special counsel filed a response both defending its office and pushing back on concerns about timing.The special counsel argued that “the timing of the indictment in this case was far from suspicious. The prosecution did not materialize out of thin air on August 1, 2023, when the grand jury returned the indictment.”
“Rather, the investigation by career prosecutors was underway well before the defendant was charged or pleaded not guilty in the Southern District of Florida or criticized the Special Counsel’s Office.
“As the defendant knows from discovery, the lengthy and thorough investigation involved career prosecutors and professional law enforcement agents interviewing hundreds of witnesses, obtaining and reviewing millions of pages of documents from subpoenas and search warrants, and ultimately securing an indictment from a grand jury composed of citizens of this District. Indeed, the defendant is well-familiar with the lengthy duration of the investigation, having participated in pre-indictment litigation as early as June 2022.”
