In the ridiculous federal election interference case in D.C., President Trump’s attorneys argued to the DC Circuit appellate court that President Trump holds inherent constitutional immunity. In essence, because President Trump was acquitted by the Senate of claims he incited or instigated the January 6, 2021, events, lawyers arguing under the constitution that only impeached and removed presidents can be criminally prosecuted.
The initial 3-judge panel of the court has taken up the appeal, and all subsequent lower court activity was suspended until the constitutional issue is resolved. Again, if President Trump does not have immunity, then all preceding and future presidents can be criminally prosecuted for any/all events and decisions while holding office. This is a core issue, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has to tread very carefully with these ramifications at the forefront.
The decision of the 3-judge panel could also be followed by a full en-banc review by all judges in the circuit. Then, depending on their decision, it could -likely will- go even higher to the U.S. Supreme Court. All of this takes time, and the initial 3-judge appeals court have not provided any hints on their timeline.
Apparently, as a consequence, the entire trial of the case has been removed from the lower DC court docket. The removal took place within the last few days, and the Washington Post noticed the removal. This removal means the timing of the case, if at all, is completely unknown now.
WASHINGTON – Former president Donald Trump’s March 4 trial date on charges of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election has been dropped from the public calendar of the federal court in Washington, a sign of what has long been anticipated — that his claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would delay his trial while it remains on appeal.
The change did not appear on the official criminal case docket before U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who has made clear since Trump filed his appeal on Dec. 7 that all trial deadlines would be suspended while he challenges the case. On appeal, Trump is arguing that the government does not have authority under the Constitution to bring charges against him for actions he took while president after the 2020 election through the Jan. 6, 2021. (read more)
In addition to the challenges within these core issues, the Lawfare approach by Jack Smith, Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann, faces multiple additional hurdles. These are all issues that surface when Lawfare, the application of twisted legal theory intended to manipulate public opinion, runs into the reality of ever-increasing scrutiny from courts.
Combine these fraudulent legal theories with the reality that President Trump’s status is almost certainly “presumptive presidential nominee” in the eyes of the entire judicial branch, and things change. The pretending justification for the Lawfare claims now hit the non-pretending and visible reality of political intent.
The judicial scrutiny gets even more focused, and the explanations demanded as justifications to target President Trump increase. As the calendar of the November election gets closer Jack, Mary and Andrew will have to rely on ideologically aligned black robes to maintain their Lawfare pretense. Some of the robes will not be comfortable with the demands of Jack, Mary and Andrew.
Some of the robes may not pretend, and that poses a problem for Jack, Mary and Andrew.
So that must mean Trump is finished, right??????
Maybe. But also Biden, Obama, Clinton and Bush.
Hardly…
“Again, if President Trump does not have immunity, then all preceding and future presidents can be criminally prosecuted for any/all events and decisions while holding office.”
That puts my in a tough position, because (A) most former presidents are Democrats who committed terribly unlawful acts and (B) I would like those Dems to be punished. For that matter, I wouldn’t mind seeing GWBush charged for more than a few of the things he did.
Yes, but who will do the charging, that’s the thing.
Confused about the authority underlying Garland’s appointment of “outsider” Jack Smith, but “insider” special counsel Weiss and Hur, and the possible motivation behind those appointments?
After weed-whacking my way through the Meese brief, perhaps this will help.
For the President Trump prosecution, Garland faced a dilemma:
1) Appoint a “special counsel” from “outside government” and over whom he could claim to have no control; thereby providing the appearance of independence and legitimacy.
(That appointment procedure and provision of powers are expressly contemplated by a series of DOJ regulations (what the Meese brief calls the “Reno Regulations”) promulgated under the Ethics in Government Act. Problem: <b>that statute lapsed in 1999</b>, arguably mooting the corresponding regs.)
Or
2) Invoke the active statutory authority available to the AG to appoint <i>other kinds of special counsel</i> (another Meese brief term), which authority, importantly, is restricted to government employees, officials, or “inferior officers,”e.g., U.S. attorneys. (See the grudging appointmet of David Weiss to prosecute Hunter Biden outside Weiss’ jurisdiction and the studious appointment of Robert Hur to bury Joe Biden’s purloined government documents problem.)
All the foregoing of whom would have been under Garland’s supervision and well within the Constitution’s “Appointments Clause” constraints…
But decidedly not independent.
Draw the inferences as you may.
Trump is literally superhuman. I don’t know if there is another man that could put up with all of this persecution and bs and still laugh and smile (Job does come to mind). These scumbags Weissmann, McCord and Smith deserve payback. Trump will be the one to deliver it.
One thing that we have to learn quickly is that the impartiality of the American court system no longer exists. You are a third-class citizen in your own country and the “judgment” of law enforcement, and the court system will reflect that. The guards at Auschwitz were just following orders too.
“Suspended Indefinitely”
RAT Code for:
Until we can find another Civil War Law and reword it to make something that President Trump did that was legal – illegal … again.
Thank you for putting McCord up there (down there) with Smith and Weissman.
Is McCord related to James McCord of A Piece Of Tape / CIA fame?
In my gut always thought these junk indictments would implode when it became apparent Trump will be the Republican nominee. I also thought Fanni would have plenty of corruption that would be exposed as a result of her over ambitious prosecution of so many capable and credible lawyers and advisors charged in her ill advised Rico case. The democrats over charged.
Jack Smith big sad. This entire fiasco is fkn ridiculous.
Yes. He’s got the sad feelz now.
Poor Jack has sad feelz.
Some perspective I had not seen here before.
https://www.deepcapture.com/2023/12/extortionist-jack-smith-is-being-extorted-to-pursue-trump/
This was all predictable, given the issues raised and prior knowledge about the appellate and Supreme Court. So what’s really going on?
Meanwhile, I wonder, after the decision for the government in the Texas case, and the sudden pressure on Sotomayor to resign, can the Supreme Court be relied upon anymore?
Good news would be a dismissal, Smith’s appointment found to be improper, or President Trump’s immunity being confirmed.
Smith’s case deals entirely with the Congressional count of the Electoral Votes submitted by the States. There is no other subject in the indictment that is discernible. The governing statute of the Electoral Vote count is the Electoral Count Act, which is not a criminal statute. The Replacement Electors used by five of the seven states’ delegations of Trump Elector NOMINEES are NOT “Fraudulent Electors.” They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL ELECTORS since all Elector Nominees must be chosen in accord with the law governing the selections of Elector Nominees. In Pennsylvania, Elector Nominees are chosen by the Presidential and/or the Vice Presidential nominee of the the candidate. The other states have other statutes describing how Elector Nominees are chosen. If not by the relevant statute, the Electors named on a “Certificate of Electoral Votes,” as submitted to the President of the Senate and the National Archives are not CONSTITUTIONAL Elector Nominees. Being Unconstitutional does not mean either “Fraudulent” or “Criminal,” but subject to being declared Unconstitutional, and therefore the votes of those individual Elector Nominees could be thrown out by the Supreme Court, or the votes of the state’s entire delegation could be thrown out as Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Being Unconstitutional is not synonymous with being CRIMINAL. If you are the defendant in a Constitutional case before the Supreme Court, you simply lose the case and there are no criminal sanctions.