U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed an argument disputing President Trump’s claim to presidential immunity amid his 2020 election interference case.CBS News congressional correspondent Scott MacFarlane published the documents on Saturday. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia earlier in the day.The intent of the filing was to ask for the “review of the order of the district court (Chutkan, J.) denying his motions to dismiss based on Presidential immunity and principles of double jeopardy.””Immunity from criminal prosecution would be particularly dangerous where, as here, the former President is alleged to have engaged in criminal conduct aimed at overturning the results of [an] election,” Smith wrote in the filing.SPECIAL COUNSEL IN TRUMP CASE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FORMER REAGAN AG SAYS Jack Smith, U.S. special counsel, speaks during a news conference in Washington, D.C. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images/File)”A President who unlawfully seeks to retain power through criminal means unchecked by potential criminal prosecution could jeopardize both the Presidency itself and the very foundations of our democratic system of governance,” the special counsel added.The document also accused Trump of “conspir[ing] to use knowingly false claims of election fraud with the goal of overturning the legitimate results of that election and disenfranchising millions of voters.”TRUMP CALLS CLAIMS HE’S A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY A ‘HOAX,’ SAYS BIDEN IS THE REAL THREAT: ‘I WILL SAVE DEMOCRACY'”For the foregoing reasons, the Court should affirm the district court’s order denying the defendant’s motions to dismiss on Presidential immunity and double-jeopardy grounds,” the conclusion read. “For the reasons given in the Government’s motion to expedite appellate review, including the imperative public importance of a prompt resolution of this case, the Government respectfully requests the Court to issue the mandate five days after the entry of judgment.”CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP”Such an approach would appropriately require any party seeking further review to do so promptly,” the conclusion added.This breaking news story is developing. Check back with us for updates.Fox News Digital’s Lillian Le Croy contributed to this report.
