The Biden-Harris Department of Justice’s (DOJ) special counsel, Jack Smith, filed a superseding indictment against former President Donald J. Trump in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, in an ‘attempt’ to comply with the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States on presidential immunity. On its surface, the indictment appears as another underhanded attempt to escalate the Biden-Harris government’s lawfare campaign against Trump. But it also almost certainly means that the Washington, D.C. ‘election interference’ trial won’t occur until well after the 2024 presidential election.
Earlier this month, Smith asked U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to delay proceedings until August 30 so that his office could submit an updated timetable. Chutkan granted the request, and Smith indicated that either an amended or superseding indictment would be filed in response to the presidential immunity issue.
The new indictment against Trump from Smith‘s office preserves the four core federal charges: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, Obstruction of, and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, and Conspiracy Against Rights. However, the document has now removed much of the ancillary evidence that formed the ‘meat’ of Smith’s prior indictment.
For instance, all references to Conspirator 4 appear to have been removed—identified as former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Clark–who has steadfastly stood by President Trump the entire way. In addition, the new version of the indictment removes accusations that former President Trump attempted to use the DOJ to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
These changes by Smith were necessary to remove aspects of his case that violated the Supreme Court‘s presidential immunity ruling. The ruling grants a presumption of immunity for communications between the President of the United States and his subordinates, including officials at the DOJ. Additionally, the president’s decisions and actions are largely protected by immunity as long as they fall under what is considered an official act.
The superseding indictment—which required an expedited review and was approved by a new grand jury (since the original group of jurors is no longer impaneled)—will now be reviewed by Judge Chutkan. As part of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, Chutkan must parse the indictment to separate what she determines are official versus private acts. This next step will be critical for Trump and Smith as immunity claims are appealable pre-trial in federal cases.
PARSING OFFICIAL ACTS.
Perhaps the most significant change in the indictment from its prior version—aside from the removal of Clark and references to Trump‘s communications with DOJ officials—is Smith‘s new argument that the Vice President’s role in certifying an election is purely legislative in nature.
Smith contends the President of the United States thus has no official role in certifying a presidential election, arguing it falls purely to Congress and the Vice President. This contention will likely be the primary focus of Chutkan’s review and the likely target of an immediate appeal by attorneys for former President Trump.
Another accusation preserved in the new indictment is that former President Trump engaged in a fake elector scheme.
While the Supreme Court‘s immunity ruling left the elector question somewhat open, the court majority made it abundantly clear that then-President Trump could have engaged in official acts through communications with his officials regarding this allegation. Again, the fact that Smith left this allegation in his superseding indictment likely means there will be additional litigation after Judge Chutkan‘s ruling, which will delay the case further.
BACK TO SCOTUS.
In short, Smith‘s superseding indictment—while, in his mind, strengthening his case—almost certainly means additional litigation will now occur, and the Washington, D.C. election interference prosecution will not move forward until after the November election.
It is also almost certain that Smith’s superseding indictment will be remanded to the Supreme Court before the case ever moves to trial. The high court will likely determine that Smith failed to abide adequately by its ruling in Trump v. United States.
It is important to remember that the Supreme Court—contra what we’re likely to see from Judge Chutkan’s review of the new indictment—held in the Trump case that the President has the presumption of immunity. This means that any official act is, by default, immune from prosecution unless shown to be otherwise. Smith’s superseding indictment is nothing more than an attempt to turn this precedent on its head—something the high court will not likely welcome.
https://thenationalpulse.com/analysis-post/what-does-jack-smiths-new-trump-indictment-really-mean/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/trump-slams-deranged-special-counsel-jack-smiths-desperate/
No comments:
Post a Comment