 |
|
Supreme Court Will 'Eviscerate' Jack Smith's Case
Posted on: February 29, 2024 at 10:27:25 CT
Spanky KU
Posts:
142195
Member For:
20.35 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-will-eviscerate-jack-smith-s-case-legal-analyst/ar-BB1j72eM?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=71811407758f4226adb132c4f9a583b9&ei=22
The Supreme Court will likely rule against Special Counsel Jack Smith in the federal election obstruction case after taking up Donald Trump's immunity appeal, legal experts have said.
The country's highest court has agreed to take up the former president's claim that he is immune from prosecution as the charges filed under Smith's investigation into alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the events that led up to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot relate to his time in office.
The decision from the Supreme Court means the trial where Trump has pleaded not guilty to four charges could potentially be delayed by months. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the proceedings, has scrapped the original March trial date amid the conclusion of the immunity argument and said the period in which proceedings are on hold will not count towards the seven months between indictment and the trial starting which she offered the former president's legal team to prepare.
The Supreme Court judges are set to hear oral arguments on the week of April 22 on "whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."
The justices will then decide on whether the previous decision from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reject the former president's immunity argument can remain in place.
One week before the immunity hearings, the Supreme Court will also hear arguments in the case of Fischer v. United States over whether a defendant charged in connection to the January 6 riot can be prosecuted under federal law with obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress.
The charge, formally known as 18 U.S.C. 1512, is also one of the allegations to which Trump, the current Republican frontrunner in the 2024 election race, has pleaded not guilty under Smith's federal investigation.
Kurt Schlichter, a columnist for conservative news site TownHall and a trial lawyer, suggested that SCOTUS may have already ruled that the obstruction charge can not be cited in the Fischer case even before they hear arguments in Trump's.
"I think SCOTUS will eviscerate 1512, and send back the remaining two bogus Trump charges to the lower courts to determine if presidential immunity applies in their specific cases," Schlichter posted on X, formerly Twitter.
A similar sentiment was also made by a veteran attorney who posts on X as @alegalnerd.
"I think they will eviscerate 1512 & hold no official acts presidential immunity for remaining two charges—charges that, as I pointed out in the past, have their own, significant evidentiary and legal hurdles and vulnerabilities," they wrote.
Newsweek reached out to the Department of Justice via email for comment.
In a statement after the Supreme Court took up his immunity appeal, Trump argued that without absolute immunity a president would not be able to "properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest" of the country.
"Presidents will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office," Trump said on Truth Social.
"This could actually lead to the extortion and blackmail of a President. The other side would say, 'If you don't do something, just the way we want it, we are going to go after you when you leave office, or perhaps even sooner.'"
Smith argues that a former president can not cite immunity once they have left office, and committing crimes does not fall under the scope of their presidential duties.
Norm Eisen, who served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment of Trump, lashed out at the Supreme Court for taking up the immunity case.
"Despite a total absence of legal precedent and universal rejection by lower courts, the Supreme Court decided to give a hearing to Trump's claims of absolute presidential immunity," Eisen said.
"By agreeing to hear the case at all, they are delaying a trial over the January 6 election interference case. But let's be clear: there is still time to have a trial, and Department of Justice policy does not prohibit the scheduling of one during an election. The Supreme Court must decide as quickly as humanly possible after oral argument, so that Trump can at last be judged by a jury of Americans."
The Supreme Court will likely rule against Special Counsel Jack Smith in the federal election obstruction case after taking up Donald Trump's immunity appeal, legal experts have said.
The country's highest court has agreed to take up the former president's claim that he is immune from prosecution as the charges filed under Smith's investigation into alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the events that led up to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot relate to his time in office.
The decision from the Supreme Court means the trial where Trump has pleaded not guilty to four charges could potentially be delayed by months. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the proceedings, has scrapped the original March trial date amid the conclusion of the immunity argument and said the period in which proceedings are on hold will not count towards the seven months between indictment and the trial starting which she offered the former president's legal team to prepare.
The Supreme Court judges are set to hear oral arguments on the week of April 22 on "whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."
The justices will then decide on whether the previous decision from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reject the former president's immunity argument can remain in place.
One week before the immunity hearings, the Supreme Court will also hear arguments in the case of Fischer v. United States over whether a defendant charged in connection to the January 6 riot can be prosecuted under federal law with obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress.
The charge, formally known as 18 U.S.C. 1512, is also one of the allegations to which Trump, the current Republican frontrunner in the 2024 election race, has pleaded not guilty under Smith's federal investigation.
Kurt Schlichter, a columnist for conservative news site TownHall and a trial lawyer, suggested that SCOTUS may have already ruled that the obstruction charge can not be cited in the Fischer case even before they hear arguments in Trump's.
"I think SCOTUS will eviscerate 1512, and send back the remaining two bogus Trump charges to the lower courts to determine if presidential immunity applies in their specific cases," Schlichter posted on X, formerly Twitter.
A similar sentiment was also made by a veteran attorney who posts on X as @alegalnerd.
"I think they will eviscerate 1512 & hold no official acts presidential immunity for remaining two charges—charges that, as I pointed out in the past, have their own, significant evidentiary and legal hurdles and vulnerabilities," they wrote.
Newsweek reached out to the Department of Justice via email for comment.
In a statement after the Supreme Court took up his immunity appeal, Trump argued that without absolute immunity a president would not be able to "properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest" of the country.
"Presidents will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office," Trump said on Truth Social.
"This could actually lead to the extortion and blackmail of a President. The other side would say, 'If you don't do something, just the way we want it, we are going to go after you when you leave office, or perhaps even sooner.'"
Smith argues that a former president can not cite immunity once they have left office, and committing crimes does not fall under the scope of their presidential duties.
Norm Eisen, who served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment of Trump, lashed out at the Supreme Court for taking up the immunity case.
"Despite a total absence of legal precedent and universal rejection by lower courts, the Supreme Court decided to give a hearing to Trump's claims of absolute presidential immunity," Eisen said.
"By agreeing to hear the case at all, they are delaying a trial over the January 6 election interference case. But let's be clear: there is still time to have a trial, and Department of Justice policy does not prohibit the scheduling of one during an election. The Supreme Court must decide as quickly as humanly possible after oral argument, so that Trump can at last be judged by a jury of Americans."
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Supreme Court Will 'Eviscerate' Jack Smith's Case - Spanky KU - 2/29 10:27:25