D. J. T r u m p : What's the latest on the U.S. Gadfly ?

sear

sear

Administrator
Staff member
In electoral college adjusted polls, former president Trump either leads, or threatens electoral win in November's election.

Trump's appointees / buddies in the judicial have tried to run interference for the most criminal president in history.

Trump v. United States seemed to offer Trump some cover for his own manifold misdeeds. Despite that Supreme Court ruling special counsel Jack Smith
has opted to proceed against Trump:

Special Counsel Says Trump Committed ‘Private Crimes’ in Bid to Stay in Power

Prosecutors’ submission of evidence says Trump was unconcerned about Vice President Pence’s safety on Jan. 6, 2021​

By C. Ryan Barber and Sadie Gurman / Updated Oct. 2, 2024 8:04 pm ET

A legal expert breaks down the Supreme Court’s decision granting sweeping immunity to former presidents for acts while in office, and what it means for Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case.
Special counsel Jack Smith, seeking to kick-start the federal prosecution of Donald Trump on election-interference charges, laid out a 165-page road map for allegations that the former president “resorted to crimes” to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.

The filing, unsealed Wednesday in a Washington, D.C., trial court, amounted to a defense of the case even after a recent Supreme Court ruling that conferred broad immunity on presidents for official acts at the core of their constitutional powers. Smith’s team asserts that Trump’s “scheme was fundamentally a private one,” leaving him open for prosecution.

 
I thought the immunity granted by the Supremes only applied to "official acts" - Trump has been trying to claim that his attempts to cover up his payments to a porn star were official Presidential acts because he'd discussed them with one of his staffers.
 
Not much more than a hunch, but I suspect Trump's SCOTUS chums would have preferred to just give Trump a get out of jail free card, without establishing a precedent that might in the future benefit a Democrat.
That's not an option so they came as close as they could without machine guns by ruling recklessly, but vaguely.

That's where this Jack Smith deal comes in. Early reports suggest Smith addressed prospective ambiguity, with legal justification for his approach.

Not (yet?) clear to me about the timing, one month from the election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top