ST. LOUIS, Missouri — Special counsel Jack Smith's legal team is expected to present arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday opposing former President Donald Trump's requests for legal immunity for his actions on and around Jan. 6, 2021.
A lower court already ruled Trump cannot claim immunity to shield him from criminal charges in the case.
Smith's case recently got an assist from former U.S. Senator Jack Danforth (R-Missouri). Danforth filed a legal brief with a U.S. Supreme Court warning justices not to grant Trump immunity because the precedent might invite a usurper's military coup in the future.
Danforth had previously expressed concerns about the precedent it might set for the federal government to prosecute an outgoing president.
"What bothers me is the notion that one party comes in power and prosecutes the other party," Danforth told 5 On Your Side back in July of 2022. "I don't know, maybe it's called for in this case."
Whatever reservations he had at the time appear to have dissipated as he now strongly urges the Supreme Court against shielding Trump from criminal charges.
Danforth said he wants to see consequences for the conspirators of the Jan. 6 attempt to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election results. During an interview on 'The Record,' Danforth said he hopes voters ultimately hold Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) responsible for his role in the events around that day, too.
Danforth, a former Missouri Attorney General, now regrets his past support of Hawley, and said his actions leading up to Jan. 6 were "unforgivable."
Danforth served in the U.S. Senate from 1975 to 1995.
Below is the transcript of Senator Danforth's interview on 'The Record':
Mark Maxwell: One of the most accomplished politicians in Missouri history, is making a personal appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could have major implications in this year's presidential election. The question is whether Trump should have a shield of immunity that would protect him from criminal prosecution for his behavior on and around Jan. 6, that day when Congress certified the election results and initiated what was supposed to be a peaceful transfer of power.
Former Senator Jack Danforth ... joins us now after filing this brief with a U.S. Supreme Court warning justices not to grant Trump immunity because the legal precedent itself might invite a usurper's military coup.
Danforth, good to have you with us. Trump's legal team calls that a "lurid hypothetical." What persuades you that a threat like that is real?
Jack Danforth: The question is whether the president is immune from any criminal prosecution for any act to interfere with a peaceful transfer of power. And this is an issue that's... It's much more important than any person or any political party. It has to do with the rule of law, and specifically, it has to do with the Constitution itself. Which in two different places provides that at a particular time and place, the office of the presidency is vacated, and it belongs to the person who's next elected. And that is what Trump tried to prevent from happening.
Mark Maxwell: You refer to the Constitution...
Jack Danforth: And the allegation in the indictment is that he did it by criminal methods. So if he could interfere with the transfer of power, he could use, for example, the armed forces, as was threatened in this case to seize voting machines and to use whatever power he could, and that he would be immune from prosecution. So I think that is wrong.
Mark Maxwell: Sure. It was ultimately unsuccessful. And people have gone to prison for their role on Jan. 6 and around those events so far. You refer to the Constitution and there's also federal law. Your court filing acknowledges that "existing federal criminal statutes deter a president's use of the military and armed federal agents to alter presidential election results." That's in your filing. So why would granting Trump immunity change any of that? Wouldn't any other coconspirators also be violating federal law?
Jack Danforth: Well, he could simply use the military or try to use the military. That is, what was suggested in this case. There were people in his administration who were advocating the use of the military to seize voting machines. They could also use the military to interfere with the counting of the electoral votes. So, yeah, I mean, then the fact that there's ... I mean, that's just the point. He would have violated statutes. The prosecutor in the indictment contends that he has violated criminal statutes. And now he claims, 'Well, that's okay. I'm free to violate criminal statutes, I want to stay in power.'
Mark Maxwell: There's another election coming up. A lot of people in Missouri are watching this year. You famously served as a mentor to Josh Hawley before he became a U.S. senator and helped him defeat Claire McCaskill. That was a major pickup for republicans in 2018. But after Jan. 6, you called that, "the worst mistake of your life." Do you want to see Josh Hawley win a second term?
Jack Danforth: No. I don't. I was a great fan of Josh's, and I still hope that I am his friend, but I think what he did relating to Jan. 6, was just intolerable. It was ... I mean, he went on national television and he said this election was going to be determined on January 6th. He knew that that wasn't the case. And then he went out and before the crowd and egged them on. So, no, I think what he's done is just unforgivable as far as being the US Senator is concerned. And I said at the time that supporting him was the biggest mistake I have ever made in my life. And I still believe that.
Mark Maxwell: You went so far as to try and support, temporarily, a third-party candidate in the 2022 Senate race. Could you see yourself go so far as to endorse or support a Democrat against Hawley?
Jack Danforth: Well, you know, I am a Republican and I've always been a Republican, and I believe in the principles of the Republican Party. So I would hope that this could be resolved within the Republican Party and that our party could stand by its historic values, which include the rule of law and which include, for example, a strong national defense standing by our allies and not going overboard with huge deficits in the federal budget. Those are the principles of the Republican Party. And I stand by them. I support them, and I hope that the historic Republican Party can be brought back to life and restored because it has so much to offer our country and has given so much to our country.
Mark Maxwell: If I can circle back to this January 6th question on your 'friend of the court' brief that you filed there: you have a friend on the court. You've referred to Justice Clarence Thomas as a friend of yours and helped to shepherd him through the Senate Judiciary confirmation process those years ago. Some of his critics, including Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, have suggested he should recuse himself because of his wife Ginni Thomas's involvement in communication with the Trump White House around that. How do you see that question? Should he recuse because of his wife's involvement, or is he able to handle that?
Jack Danforth: No, no, I think once you start down the road of trying to recuse people other than for financial reasons, that they have some financial stake in the case, of course, they would recuse themselves. But something as sort of fuzzy as this? No way. And, you know, I know Clarence Thomas very well, and he's going to make up his mind, and he's not going to be swayed in his judicial decisions by anybody, his wife or anybody else.
Watch full episodes of The Record on 5+ for your Roku, Fire TV or Apple TV.