BREAKING: Jack Smith Just Got BRUTAL Smackdown

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit delivered a brutal smackdown to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, establishing a precedent that may have future consequences for executive privilege and the division of powers.

The court’s verdict, submitted on Tuesday, concerns the search of data housed at locations under the control of X, formerly Twitter, which challenged Smith’s request.

The matter, which has attracted widespread national interest, is around the Special Counsel’s endeavor to circumvent conventional executive privilege safeguards in its examination of Donald Trump’s Twitter posts when he was president.

Although Smith was eventually favored by the court on appeal, the official brief included a scathing criticism of Smith’s methods.

The court document explicitly asserted that “judicial disregard of executive privilege undermines the Presidency, not just the former President being investigated in this case.”

The court condemned the Special Counsel’s methodology, which involved executing a search warrant and issuing a nondisclosure order not taking into account the privileged nature of presidential records. The court highlighted that “This unprecedented approach is mistaken for at least three reasons,” underscoring the deviation from past norms and the crucial constitutional safeguard of executive privilege.

An essential issue of disagreement in the lawsuit revolved around President Trump’s utilization of Twitter. The Special Counsel refuted Twitter’s assertion of presidential privilege, contending that there is “no plausible reason to conclude that the former President … would have used Twitter’s direct-message function to carry out confidential communications.”

Nevertheless, the court emphasized that then President Trump utilized his Twitter account for official purposes, so suggesting that his account may have contained confidential material.

The court’s ruling also discussed the wider consequences for the division of powers, writing, “The absence of a presumptive privilege particularly threatens the Chief Executive when, as here, a third party holds presidential communications.”

This indicates the possibility of future conflicts arising in like instances.

Moreover, the court expressed disapproval towards the district court and the Special Counsel for their management of executive privilege claims, asserting that both courts have reversed the default assumption without any explanation.

The court decisively rejected the appellant’s request for a rehearing en banc, with no court member calling for a vote on the issue. The ruling signifies a significant hindrance for Special Counsel Jack Smith.

The court’s ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s acknowledgment of the need to preserve a delicate equilibrium among the branches of government.

Last week, the Oregon Supreme Court refused to consider the case that sought to prevent former President Donald Trump from being listed on Oregon’s primary and general election ballots. Instead, they chose to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on a similar issue.

In the flurry of an extensive effort led by Democrat organizations, an attempt has been made to dispute Trump’s eligibility to hold federal office based on the 14th Amendment. This amendment bars anyone who have “engaged in insurrection” from being in the position.

A statement by Oregon’s top court indicated that “A decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fourteenth Amendment issue may resolve one or more contentions that relators make in this proceeding.”

“Given that possibility, we deny relators’ petition for a writ of mandamus at this time, without prejudice to relators’ ability to file a new petition seeking resolution of any issue that may remain following a decision by the United States Supreme Court.”

The Oregon action, spearheaded by Free Speech for People, a prominent national advocacy organization, aimed to legally compel the Secretary of State of Oregon to uphold and implement the requirements of the 14th Amendment.

Nevertheless, state attorneys argued that the jurisdiction to assess the eligibility of presidential candidates does not lay within the purview of the state. This stance is in agreement with the notion that the determination of the constitutional qualifications for presidential candidates falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Free Speech For People, a leftist activist group, filed a lawsuit at the end of last year, specifically targeting the Oregon Supreme Court. The organization expressed “The Oregon Supreme Court’s decision not to decide is disappointing,” as stated in their statement released on Friday.

“Waiting until the U.S. Supreme Court issues its order only compresses the time that the Oregon Supreme Court may have to resolve the issues that may remain.”

The Trump campaign expressed approval of the ruling. “Today’s decision in Oregon was the correct one. President Trump urges the swift dismissal of all remaining, bad-faith, election interference 14th Amendment ballot challenges.”

Democrats began trying to disqualify Trump from holding federal office by way of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ever since the violence at the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.

COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 

 

 

 

 

Send this to a friend