Donald Trump’s legal team keeps trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat but they continue to wind up with a turkey instead.

The latest instance of this comes courtesy of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team when they dismissed a comparison between the former president and Abraham Lincoln in a filing Thursday, in which they argued Trump does NOT enjoy “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution.

I think if you’re going to compare Trump to anyone it should be Elmer Fudd. An evil, mean-spirited Elmer Fudd.

Prosecutors presented their case in a 54-page document in response to the 52-page filing from Trump’s lawyers presented earlier this month. Trump’s lawyers argued that he is immune from prosecution because his efforts to upend the results of the 2020 presidential election “were within the ambit of his official duties as president,” Newsweek reports.

Trump is pulling out all the stops in his efforts to have the charges against him in Washington, D.C., dropped, having been indicted in August and charged with four counts stemming from alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

He has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Trump has, of course, pleaded not guilty to all of the charges.

In their filing, federal prosecutors rejected the claims that Trump’s actions were comparable to those of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln (I wonder if they had to stifle their laughter to do this?)

“The defendant is not above the law,” Smith’s team wrote. “He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens.”

“In staking his claim, he [Trump] 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,” Smith’s team wrote in their introduction.

Indeed, prosecutors instead argued that Trump’s situation could be compared 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.'”

Later in their filing, the team wrote:

“The implications of the defendant’s unbounded immunity theory are startling.”

“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 prosecutors said.

Smith’s team also brought up historical examples as they made their case — including the pardon that was issued to President Richard Nixon after he resigned from office in 1974 during the Watergate scandal. They also cited the prosecution of Vice President Aaron Burr, who was acquitted on treason charges in 1807.

Trump’s attorneys John Lauro and Todd Blanche wrote, earlier this month in their filing that: “The Constitution, the Supreme Court, and hundreds of years of history and tradition all make clear, the President’s motivations are not for the prosecution or this Court to decide.”

“Rather, where, as here, the President’s actions are within the ambit of his office, he is absolutely immune from prosecution.”

Wow. I’m sure when Smith’s team heard this it must have been hard not to laugh. The absurdity is strong with that claim. Seriously.