Donald Trump’s argument that as a former president he enjoys “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution is sharply refuted by nearly all of American history, special counsel Jack Smith argued Thursday.

In a 54-page filing taking on Trump’s sweeping bid to derail the federal criminal case against him over his efforts to upend the results of the 2020 election, Smith’s team cited the prosecution of Aaron Burr, the pardon of Richard Nixon, the civil lawsuit against Bill Clinton and Trump’s own comments on his impeachment trial in 2021 for allegedly inciting an insurrection at the Capitol.

In every instance, prosecutors said, the Constitution and those tasked with upholding it make clear that former presidents can be prosecuted criminally for actions they took while in office.

“The implications of the defendant’s unbounded immunity theory are startling,” prosecutor James Pearce and other lawyers from Smith’s team argued. “It would grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for a lucrative government contract for a family member; a president who instructs his FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a president who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.”

The dispute is the first substantive showdown over the legal framework that will define the prosecution of Trump for conspiracies he allegedly led while attempting to subvert the 2020 election.

Trump’s lawyers contended earlier this month that he simply can’t be prosecuted for efforts to overturn that election because they related to his official responsibility as president to safeguard federal elections. But prosecutors said Trump’s efforts to illegally pressure state and federal officials to subvert a lawful election were fundamentally political in nature and not part of his job. And in any case, prosecutors added, such a sweeping assertion would turn the Constitution on its head — particularly because the founding document envisions the prosecution of former presidents for crimes that may occur while in office.

While Trump is known for wrapping himself in the flag, sometimes literally, Smith’s team painted his legal position as essentially un-American — beginning their brief by rejecting his own comparisons to Washington and Lincoln.

“Throughout American history, there have been federal criminal prosecutions of high-ranking officials from all three branches of the federal government — including the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, Senators, Representatives, and judges — as well as of governors, mayors, sheriffs, and more,” prosecutors wrote. “Far from chilling public officials in the exercise of their duties, these prosecutions have helped ensure that officials and citizens alike know that ours is a system based on the rule of law, applicable without fear or favor to even the most powerful public officials.”

Well into their brief, Smith’s prosecutors cited one authority the judge overseeing the case, Tanya Chutkan, is undoubtedly familiar with: her 2021 decision rejecting Trump’s bid to shield his presidential papers from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. “Presidents are not kings,” Chutkan famously wrote.

While that was a civil dispute, prosecutors contend the rationale she cited two years ago applies even more strongly to criminal prosecutions.

“The principle that no one is above the law underlies the universal consensus that a president may be subject to criminal prosecution at some point,” the brief says.

Prosecutors also sharply rejected Trump’s contention that his acquittal in a 2021 impeachment trial — for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — barred his criminal prosecution on the matter two years later. Notably, they said, Trump took the precise opposite position during that trial, contending that he couldn’t be put on trial by the Senate as a former president because he was now subject to potential criminal prosecution.

Smith’s team also cited the statements of more than 30 Republican senators — including GOP leader Mitch McConnell — who agreed with Trump at the time, rejecting the Senate trial because they viewed the criminal justice system as the proper forum for accountability.

The impeachment charge, prosecutors added, was about inciting the Jan. 6 attack, while his criminal charges allege that he mounted three conspiracies to subvert state and federal election processes for months before the violence at the Capitol.

Trump faces two criminal cases focused on his attempt to remain in office notwithstanding the election results: the federal one brought by a grand jury in Washington in early August and another brought by a state-court grand jury in Fulton County, Ga., a couple of weeks later.

The resolution of the presidential immunity issue in the D.C. case could influence the case in Georgia, particularly if Trump pursues a pretrial appeal and the immunity issue ends up landing quickly before an appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump is also pursuing an aggressive immunity argument in a series of civil lawsuits brought against him by people injured or terrorized during the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. A federal judge in Washington rejected his absolute immunity claim in those suits, but Trump has appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Rep. Dean Phillips has begun signaling to fellow House members that he plans to launch a challenge to President Joe Biden.

Two people familiar with the discussions said that the Minnesota Democrat has told some colleagues of his intent to run, though a third person who has talked to Phillips recently said he had demurred when asked. That person said Phillips was clearly considering it but when asked point blank whether he was running, replied: “We’ll see.”

Phillips has frequently called for Biden to face a primary challenger, citing the president’s age and arguing that he has a “sense that the country is begging for alternatives.”

And he has taken several steps in recent weeks toward launching a presidential run, including calling New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley last week and reaching out to several potential staffers about working in New Hampshire.

Among those he’s approached are Steve Schmidt, a former Republican consultant, and Bill Fletcher, a Tennessee-based Democratic consultant, according to a person familiar with the nascent campaign. Schmidt and Fletcher did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Messenger first reported Phillips’ outreach to Schmidt.

Phillips and a spokesperson also did not respond to a request for comment.

A Phillips bid would face steep challenges. He’s a three-term congressman squaring off against Biden, who is sitting on more than $91 million in cash and supported by the entire party machinery. And the Democratic National Committee reordered the presidential nominating calendar last year, eliminating Iowa and New Hampshire from the top of the process and elevating South Carolina — a state that rocketed Biden to the nomination in 2020.

Phillips, a millionaire businessman who co-founded the gelato company Talenti Gelato, could self-fund much of his own campaign. But he’s struggled to hire staffers. Bill Burton, a longtime Democratic consultant and Barack Obama campaign veteran, said on X that “someone” approached him “for a conversation” about Phillips, but it was “not something I took seriously even for a second.”

Should Phillips go through with announcing, he will need to quickly get himself on the ballot in key states. He’s already missed the deadline to appear on the ballot in Nevada, the second presidential nominating state for Democrats. South Carolina, the first nominating state in the new calendar, has a balloting deadline of Nov. 10.

But Phillips may opt to skip the new calendar, focusing instead on New Hampshire, which is expected to hold its own unsanctioned primary after losing its first-in-the-nation status. A strong showing there would not net Phillips substantial delegates but it could prove a major embarrassment for Biden.

As such, top New Hampshire Democratic strategists plan to lead a write-in campaign for the president, who is expected to not formally appear on the ballot.

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden declared it is “vital for America’s national security” for Israel and Ukraine to succeed in their wars, making the case Thursday night for deepening U.S. involvement in two unpredictable foreign conflicts as he prepared to ask for billions of dollars in military assistance for both countries.

If international aggression is allowed to continue, Biden said in a rare Oval Office address, “conflict and chaos could spread in other parts of the world.”

“Hamas and Putin represent different threats,” Biden said. “But they share this in common. They both want to completely annihilate a neighboring democracy.”

He said he would send an urgent funding request to Congress, which is expected to be $105 billion for the next year. The proposal, which will be unveiled on Friday, includes $60 billion for Ukraine, much of which is for replenishing U.S. weapons stockpiles that have already been provided.

There’s $14 billion for Israel, $10 billion for humanitarian efforts, $14 billion for managing the U.S.-Mexico border and fighting fentanyl trafficking and $7 billion for the Indo-Pacific region, which includes Taiwan. The proposal was described by three people familiar with the details who insisted on anonymity before the official announcement.

“It’s a smart investment that’s going to pay dividends for American security for generations,” Biden said.

Biden hopes that combining all of these issues into one piece of legislation will create the necessary political coalition for congressional approval. His speech comes the day after his high-stakes trip to Israel, where he showed solidarity with the country in its battle against Hamas and pushed for more humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Ahead of his address, Biden spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to stress that the U.S. remained committed to backing Kyiv, the White House said. And a senior White House official said Biden continued to develop his remarks on Thursday after working with close aides throughout the week, including on his flight home from Israel. The official declined to be identified ahead of the president’s speech.

Biden faces an array of steep challenges as he tries to secure the money. The House remains in chaos because the Republican majority has been unable to select a speaker to replace Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who was ousted more than two weeks ago.

In addition, conservative Republicans oppose sending more weapons to Ukraine as its battle against the Russian invasion approaches the two-year mark. Biden’s previous request for funding, which included $24 billion to help with the next few months of fighting, was stripped out of budget legislation last month despite a personal plea from Zelenskyy.

The White House has warned that time is running out to prevent Ukraine, which recently struggled to make progress in a grueling counteroffensive, from losing ground to Russia because of dwindling supplies of weapons.

There will be resistance on the other side of the political spectrum when it comes to military assistance for Israel, which has been bombarding the Gaza Strip in response to the Hamas attack on Oct. 7.

Critics have accused Israel of indiscriminately killing civilians and committing war crimes by cutting off essential supplies like food, water and fuel.

Bipartisan support for Israel has already eroded in recent years as progressive Democrats have become more outspoken in their opposition to the country’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory, which is widely viewed as illegal by the international community.

There are rumbles of disagreement within Biden’s administration as well. Josh Paul, a State Department official who oversaw the congressional liaison office dealing with foreign arms sales, resigned over U.S. policy on weapons transfers to Israel.

“I cannot work in support of a set of major policy decisions, including rushing more arms to one side of the conflict, that I believe to be short-sighted, destructive, unjust and contradictory to the very values that we publicly espouse,” he wrote in a statement posted to his LinkedIn account.

Paul is believed to be the first official to have resigned in opposition to the administration’s decision to step up military assistance to Israel after the Oct. 7 attack.

While visiting Tel Aviv on Wednesday, Biden told Israel that “we will not let you ever be alone.” However, he cautioned Israelis against being “consumed” by rage as he said the United States was after the Sept. 11 attacks of 2001.

Wartime decision-making, Biden said, “requires asking very hard questions” and “clarity about the objectives and an honest assessment about whether the path you are on will achieve those objectives.”

A speech from the Oval Office is one of the most prestigious platforms that a president can command, an opportunity to try to seize the country’s attention at a moment of crisis. ABC, NBC and CBS all said they would break into regular programming to carry the address live.

Biden has delivered only one other such speech during his presidency, after Congress passed bipartisan budget legislation to avert a default on the country’s debt.

The White House and other senior administration officials, including Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young, have quietly briefed key lawmakers in recent days about the contours of the planned supplemental funding request.

The Senate plans to move quickly on Biden’s proposal, hoping that it creates pressure on the Republican-controlled House to resolve its leadership drama and return to legislating.

However, there are disagreements within the Senate on how to move forward. Eight Republicans, led by Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall, said they did not want to combine assistance for Ukraine and Israel in the same legislation.

“These are two separate and unrelated conflicts and it would be wrong to leverage support of aid to Israel in an attempt to get additional aid for Ukraine across the finish line,” they wrote in a letter.

North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer said he was fine with the proposal as long as there is also a fresh effort to address border issues. But he said “it’s got to be designed to secure the border, not to facilitate travel through the border.”

Although there was a lull in migrant arrivals to the U.S. after the start of new asylum restrictions in May, illegal crossings topped a daily average of more than 8,000 last month.

“There’s a huge need to reimburse for the costs of processing,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who leads a Senate panel that oversees funding for the Department of Homeland Security. “So it’s personnel costs, it’s soft-sided facilities, it’s transportation costs.”

He was wary, however, of any effort to overhaul border policy — a historically intractable issue — during a debate over spending.

“How are we going to settle our differences over immigration in the next two weeks?” Murphy said. “This is a supplemental funding bill. The minute you start loading it up with policies, that sounds like a plan to fail.”

Biden’s decision to include funding for Taiwan in his proposal is a nod toward the potential for another international conflict. China wants to reunify the self-governing island with the mainland, a goal that could be carried out through force.

Although wars in Europe and the Middle East have been the most immediate concerns for U.S. foreign policy, Biden views Asia as the key arena in the struggle for global influence.

The administration’s national security strategy, released last year, describes China as “America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge.”

Related Articles

Gaza under Israeli siege: Bread lines, yellow water and nonstop explosions

As Israel-Hamas war rages, Israelis can now travel to US for 90 days without getting a visa

Biden will deliver a rare Oval Office address as he seeks billions of dollars for Israel and Ukraine

Gaza awaits humanitarian aid, as Israel tells troops to ‘be ready’ for ground invasion

Bret Stephens: President Biden’s finest hour