Former President Donald Trump invoked the Supreme Court's recent immunity decision to demand Judge Aileen Cannon rule special counsel Jack Smith's appointment is unconstitutional, according to a new filing in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.
The Supreme Court ruled that presidents have a presumption of immunity from prosecution for "official acts," but gave lower courts very little guidance on what type of acts are official or unofficial.
It's not at all clear any of this would apply to the documents case, since virtually all of the alleged conduct being charged of concealing documents and obstructing investigators took place while Trump was out of office or transitioning out of office.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
Trump's lawyers clearly hope Cannon, a Trump appointee, will feel differently when she reads the concurring statement from Justice Clarence Thomas.
ALSO READ: Republicans weaponizing ignorance is a dangerous game
"Thomas’s concurrence in Trump adds force to the motions relating to the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses," the filing states. "By extension, these statutes are not 'other law' under the relevant appropriation, and these 'essential questions' should be addressed 'before proceeding.'"
ALSO READ: How Donald Trump could run for president — and lead the nation — from prison
The Trump campaign has filed a series of motions intended to hobble the prosecution, including an argument that the FBI's search warrant for Mar-a-Lago was unconstitutional in the first place, although Cannon appeared to be skeptical of this argument.
The trial date is currently on indefinite hold as Cannon works through a number of pretrial disputes that have sat untouched for months, pushing any such trial to beyond the November election.
