Jack Smith Should Not Disclose More Evidence Against Trump During Early Voting, Trump Attorneys Argue

Special counsel Jack Smith should not release more evidence in his case against former President Donald Trump during early voting, defense attorneys told the judge in a filing Thursday.

Allowing Smith to release the appendix attached to his motion on presidential immunity, which Judge Tanya Chutkan already allowed Smith to file on the public docket, would be a continuation of “overt and inappropriate election interference,” Trump’s attorneys argued.

Read More

Jack Smith’s Use of Obstruction Law Limited by Supreme Court ‘Fatally Undermines’ Case, Trump Attorneys Argue

Supreme Court

Special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case falls apart under recent Supreme Court precedent, former President Donald Trump’s attorneys said Thursday.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Fischer v. United States, which scaled back the Biden-Harris Department of Justice’s (DOJ) overbroad use of an obstruction statute designed to target corporate document shredding against Jan. 6 defendants, “fatally undermines” two counts and requires dismissing two others, Trump’s attorneys wrote.

Read More

Jack Smith Requests Delay in Trump Case to Assess Impact of Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Ruling

Special counsel Jack Smith requested a delay Thursday night in former president Donald Trump’s election interference case.

Prosecutors wrote in a filing that the government is still assessing the impact of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling and asked for the timeline to be pushed back several weeks. Judge Tanya Chutkan previously scheduled a hearing for Aug. 16, but Smith requested permission to instead file a proposed schedule for pretrial proceedings by the end of the month, effectively delaying any action until September.

Read More

Commentary: Supreme Court’s Immunity Decision Has Democrats in Hysterics, Again

Trump and Supreme Court

Reasonable constitutional scholars and jurists could quibble about the details and impact of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision in Trump v. United States, but the hysteria coming from the left, including President Joe Biden and dissenting Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown-Jackson, is beyond rational discourse. An inability to control emotions and anger has become commonplace for progressives who don’t get their way.

Writing for a 6-3 majority, split on ideological lines, Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion laid out a three tiered approach to presidential immunity premised on the Constitution’s vesting of the complete executive power in one individual, giving him duties and power of “unrivaled gravity and breadth” and making that individual a full and equal branch of the United States government, alongside the Congress and courts. Roberts observed that the president’s constitutional powers are often “conclusive and preclusive” and those powers may not be subject to review by Congress or the courts.

Read More