“Defendant Donald J Trump moves to dismiss the indictment, asking the Court to afford him absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for what he expansively claims was official conduct during his presidency. That novel approach to immunity would contravene the fundamental principle that ‘[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law.’ The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens. None of the sources the defendant points to in his motion – the Constitution’s text and structure, history and tradition, or Supreme Court precedent – supports the absolute immunity he asks the Court to create for him.”

“In staking his claim, he purports to draw a parallel between his fraudulent efforts to overturn the results of an election that he lost and the likes of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and George Washington’s Farewell Address. These things are not alike. The more apt parallel the defendant identifies is to judges, who, like a former president, enjoy absolute immunity from civil damages liability for certain conduct but who are ‘subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens.’ The same is true for the defendant. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment based upon presidential immunity should be denied,” writes Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith in response to Trump’s bullshit “presidential immunity” dismissal attempt.