Timing isn’t everything. But it certainly matters, and seldom more so than in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump.
The former US president intends to use timing – delay, delay, delay – to avoid punishment for trying to overturn the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden, and for fomenting a violent coup.
Nope, said Smith this week. A tough guy who has prosecuted war crimes in the Hague, Smith clearly recognizes that putting off the case until after next fall’s presidential election could let Trump off the hook.
So the prosecutor made a bold legal maneuver. Smith moved to bypass the court of appeals, whose involvement could slow things down considerably, and to go directly to the US supreme court for a decision on a foundational issue.
A tough guy
You really didn’t need to spell it out, Margaret. It’s abundantly clear from checks notes everything about this article including the headline that you’re trying to portray him as an action hero rather than what he is: a seemingly highly competent attorney prosecuting the worst president in US history.
Sane people don’t need more than that to root for him and the ones who are still rooting for the Mango Mussolini at this point can’t be reached.
I think you underestimate the amount of people who are getting paid to support him
I think you underestimate how many stupid people are out there who don’t even realize they could be paid to indulge in their psychosis.
Nah, while for different reasons, those are just as unreachable.
When it affects you enough to ignore all of reality, there’s not much reason to distinguish between pathological greed and pathological groupthink, since they arrive at the same location and jump through as many hoops to tell themselves that they’re right to and justified in doing what they do.
The intellectual and professional desert of center-lib media is fascinating: The same rotating cast of five MSNBC guests who are on every day, all day, are now primary fodder for print stories trying to get in on wishcasting monetization, like this Guardian piece. Newsweek and HuffPost literally report MSNBC show opinions now, like they’re news.
There are hundreds of qualified law professors and law firm partners with either deep legal theory or direct practice experience relevant to the Trump cases, but good luck hearing from them. Instead, we get Vance, Litman, Katyal, McQuade, and Weissman, all day every day, and now also in print.
This desert isn’t good for us. The MSNBC wishcasting monetization model left Americans poorly prepared for the Mueller outcome. The guy was canonized as a genius Marine Superman who would undoubtedly smite Trump; other professional voices weren’t invited on.
I couldn’t agree more without pulling a muscle or something!
If they rule that Trump is above the law, that sets a precedence that can be used by Biden to do whatever he wants.
Jack Smith is calling their bluff
Yeah…I’m not holding my breath.
If there’s one thing I can count on for conservatives is that the rules are for everyone else. If a conservative breaks a law, it was justified and they’ll never do it again. And if they do, it means that the law was pointless to begin with. But no liberal better break it too!
With regard to both the stupid “double jeopardy” argument and the “presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for crimes committed while in office,” here is US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
The fact that they’re actually making this argument is frivolous, and those lawyers should receive consequences for doing so.
Problem is the Supreme Court could sit on that decision until after the election. And I read the courts have paused said trail until they get an answer.
This could backfire because the Supreme Court is corrupt.
Defense motioned to the Court for a stay pending appeal. Judge Chutkan granted such a stay, because she had to; there is no other choice. However, she was very clear that that stay only puts on hold the various deadline dates for pretrial motions and discovery and such. As of right now, all of the protections in place remain (including the gag order in that case), as well as the March 4, 2024, trial date, although that trial date may be adjusted depending on how long the appeal goes.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is moving much faster on this appeal than they did with their almost year-long process which found that Trump can be civilly sued for Jan6 events. SCOTUS has already agreed to expedite the process of considering whether they will take the case (because of Jack Smith’s motion to SCOTUS to do so), and they’re asking for a hasty response from Trump’s defense team.
But based on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals moving quickly on this appeal, I suspect SCOTUS will ultimately decline to hear the case, and let stand the appeals court ruling.
I was serious about this Defense immunity/double jeopardy argument being frivolous. There is absolutely no way any court finds in Trump’s favor on either of those points - and Defense knows it. The whole point is to delay, as is made obvious by their motion to delay the appeal proceedings, apparently because Jack Smith is the Grinch? If Defense was serious about these arguments, and thought they had any chance of winning this appeal, they would want that appeals process to go forward as quickly as possible, because winning that appeal means their client becomes not only “unindicted,” but “unibictable.” One might even argue that Defense counsel moving to delay the appeals process is acting in opposition to the interests of the defendant, amounting to legal malpractice.
But I digress.
This could backfire because the Supreme Court is corrupt.
While not impossible, highly unlikely. The repercussions of ruling that a president can never be criminally charged for actions taken while holding office puts the persons who are Supreme Court Justices at direct personal risk, because such a ruling would explicitly enable a sitting president to commit crimes, not the least of which would certainly be to imprison or murder their political enemies - remember, with impunity - and SCOTUS would be on the short list there.
No, SCOTUS justices having a lifelong term means that they have a much longer view of American politics than people who have to run for election every two or four or six years. They will act to protect themselves personally, even if they are not acting to protect a functioning democracy.
There’s no point in carrying out the trial if he has immunity
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A tough guy who has prosecuted war crimes in the Hague, Smith clearly recognizes that putting off the case until after next fall’s presidential election could let Trump off the hook.
“Jack Smith wants to cut straight to the chase,” writes former US attorney Joyce Vance, noting that the supreme court has never decided this issue before.
“A huge and possibly brilliant move, a game changer one way or the other,” Harry Litman, a former justice department official who teaches constitutional law, wrote on Twitter/X.
Watching Jack Smith’s aggressive efforts throughout this prosecution, I can’t help but think of two earlier high-level legal situations involving presidents.
The other, much more recent, was the way special counsel Robert Mueller handled the investigation into whether Trump and his allies played ball with Russian operatives in order to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
With the help of attorney general Bill Barr’s dishonest work in interpreting it favorably on Trump’s behalf, Mueller’s report dwindled into something that ultimately didn’t matter much – though it should have.
The original article contains 791 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
