SCOTUS Blindsides Jack Smith With Devastating Blow

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

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley claimed this week that the Supreme Court’s decision to examine former President Donald Trump’s presidential immunity constituted a “true victory.”

Following President Trump’s request for a stay of an appeals court judgment that rejected his claims of immunity from prosecution, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday that it will take up the matter. Trump’s lawyers said Special Counsel Jack Smith was handling the case with “a political motive” in advance of the 2024 presidential contest.

“The real victory here for Trump deals with the calendar,” Turley told “Special Report” host Bret Baier. “You know, the overriding push of Smith, the special counsel, has been to get a trial before the election. He is running out of runway. If this opinion doesn’t come out until June, perhaps, you have to remember that even if Smith wins, the mandate goes back to the district court, which has to handle all the pre-trial motions. That could take months.”

The Justice Department has filed charges against a number of people who have been imprisoned and are suspected of being involved in the Capitol building incident on January 6, 2021. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments during the week of April 22.

Smith was successful in getting an indictment against Trump in August on four counts related to his efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election.

Turley stated, “They didn’t great the stay, but by setting it for argument, they created a stay effectively or constructively.”

Turley went on, “Trump has gotten what he has wanted and that this is not going to be heard until the end of April, and then all bets are off when they might issue a decision. They could issue it before June, but there’s obviously some justices here who have a lot … to talk about on this issue.”

WATCH:

 

After Trump Immunity Case is heard by the Supreme Court, Jonathan Turley says Jack Smith is on the clock.
Trump made a long statement available on his Truth Social page.

Legal scholars are incredibly appreciative of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold presidential immunity today. A president cannot effectively carry out their duties or make choices that are optimal for the United States of America if they are not granted Presidential Immunity. The fear of unjust prosecution and reprisals after they leave office will always worry presidents, sometimes paralyzing them, according to Trump.

This may potentially result in a President being blackmailed and subjected to extortion. “If you don’t do something, exactly the way we want it, we are going to go after you when you leave office, or maybe even sooner,” the opposing side would threaten,” he continued.

“Page 2: A President has to be free to determine what is right for our Country without undue pressure. If there is no Immunity, the Presidency, as we know it, will “no longer exist.” Many actions for the benefit of our Country will not be taken. This is in no way what the Founders had in mind. Legal Experts and Scholars have stated that the President must have Full Presidential Immunity. A President must be free to make proper decisions. His mind must be clear, and he must not be guided by the fear of retribution!” Trump concluded.

Trump’s legal team filed multiple filings earlier this month asking for the federal case against him to be dismissed.

The former president pleaded not guilty to 40 charges in response to claims that he improperly retained confidential data after leaving office in January 2021 and obstructed attempts by the federal government to get them.

One of the things that Trump’s lawyers have argued against is the disputed assertion that he can claim total immunity.

Furthermore, Trump’s legal team contends that the Presidential Records Act allows him to keep the papers even after he leaves the White House because he declared them to be his records while in office.

One of the documents claims that Smith’s November 2022 appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland was unlawful as the Senate had not previously approved it.

The brief further stated that the “serious problem” had been raised in an earlier argument, which is why the Appropriations and Appointments sections demand this.

COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 

 

 

 

 

Send this to a friend