Prosecutors hell-bent on their mission to” Get Trump” continue to suffer the consequences. For example, earlier this month, Judge Chutkan of the D.C. District Court extended the attorneys ‘ briefing on how Jack Smith’s circumstance against President Trump, which accused the former chairman of four crimes, may be affected by the Supreme Court’s most recent ruling in Trump v. United States.  ,
According to The New York Times, Judge Chutkan directed both the prosecution and the defense to provide a comprehensive plan for how they would follow the ambitious “fact-finding mission” that is now required by the Supreme Court’s decision under Trump by August 30 in her order. Jack Smith previously had requested the improvement to “assess the fresh precedent”, the outlet reported.
The “new precedence” bemoaned by Smith is a good one — and a necessary one. The U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that presidents may appreciate a “presumption of resistance” when engaging in “official acts” in its location Trump decision from July 1. It reiterated that the former president has “absolute immunity from legal prosecution” for “actions within his convincing and preclusive legal authority.
Washington, D. C.:  , Prosecution by Biden DOJ for Jan. 6 Speech
This is the situation, brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, out of which the Supreme Court’s decision arose.
In its opinion, the majority essentially shrunk the universe of probable acts for which Trump could be prosecuted, determining, for instance, that President Trump’s reported efforts to “leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince specific States to replace their genuine electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors” are non-prosecutable offenses, yet if proven.  ,
Additionally, the judge determined that his discussions with Vice President Mike Pence regarding rejecting the state ‘ electoral votes based on possible fraud were affirmatively immune, as both of them were reportedly discussing what was going on in their official capacity. This presumed immunity may also apply to a number of other contacts that President Trump might have had or engaged in, including tweets he might have sent out in relation to the 2020 election and conversations with native officials.
With only two months until Election Day, Smith filed a superseding indictment last week that attempt to distinguish between actions by Trump as a private citizen and those as president, acknowledging what a wall the judge’s Trump choice presented to his situation. ( This occurred in contrast to the Department of Justice’s established policy that it must refrain from any action that favors or detracts a political candidate within two months of an election. ) The grand jury’s testimony, which also contained details of standard acts, is sufficient data to pass the bar of immunity, according to President Trump‘s attorneys, who have countered that the case may be dropped.
What’s more, Trump is n’t the only Supreme Court case that substantially handicaps Jack Smith’s case.
President Trump was charged with four counts of crime and obstructing his behavior on January 6, 2021, according to Smith. The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States is now possible to forbid the prosecution of obstruction-related charges. The Supreme Court ruled in that case that the barrier charges brought against President Trump and lots of other Jan. 6 accused should be interpreted many more broadly than the Department of Justice had intended.  ,
Despite efforts by the left to describe this decision as irrelevant for President Trump, it is undoubtedly a positive thing in regard to at least two of Jack Smith’s initial four-count accusation.
Namely, the Supreme Court determined that section 1512 ( c ) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act concerning obstruction of justice must involve the obstruction of a proceeding through the destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence, unlike the DOJ’s wide interpretation, it is not enough for an official proceeding to be simply obstructed. The ruling throws into question the prosecution of some 350 Jan. 6 accused, plus two of the four works against President Trump below.
However, with Fischer decided, the club is now much higher for those prosecuting Trump. It is not enough to say that the former senator energized his base and pressed then-Vice President Pence to matter electoral votes in a certain way.
Even noteworthy: In a separate event, a federal judge in Florida simply invalidated Smith’s very visit. Although the federal prosecutor hearing this case should have the benefit of knowing that it has precedent in another jurisdiction, it should undoubtedly have compelling value. If that judge agree with Judge Cannon’s selection, it may observe that these costs would also be dismissed.
In addition to the numerous politically charged cases that Democrats have brought against the former president and had filed, which perhaps unravel following the Supreme Court’s resistance ruling, Jack Smith’s case against the former president in Washington, D.C. is just one more example of how the former president’s case may unravel.
Manhattan, New York: Prosecution by DA Alvin Bragg for NDA Payment
A New York judge led by a prosecutor who donated to Biden’s plan returned a verdict after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prosecuted Trump for allegedly “falsifying company records” over a prenuptial agreement that his lawyer had obtained from a sexual movie actress. Now, as a result of the Trump ruling, every one of the” 34 felony convictions” so oft celebrated by the left — and patently non-decipherable to the rest of the country — faces a serious threat.
The judge in that case must decide whether the allegations that President Trump made business tithing must be disregarded. The verdicts are invalid because the immunity argument by President Trump‘s lawyers was supported by the fact that the evidence relied on by jurors would have been protected by the immunity finding. If the judge here agrees, those 34 felony convictions would likely evaporate.
Southern District of Florida: Prosecution by Biden DOJ for Handling of Classified Documents
Judge Aileen Cannon already dismissed the charges in this case, ruling the appointment of Jack Smith unconstitutional. Judge Cannon may have found compelling in Supreme Court Justice Thomas ‘ concurring opinion of Trump. There, he questioned whether, as a threshold matter, Jack Smith’s fishing expedition was even a legitimate and constitutional enterprise, noting that no president has ever faced prosecution for acts while in office.  ,
” If this unprecedented prosecution is to continue, it must be conducted by someone who has the proper authority to do so by the American people,” Justice Thomas wrote. Therefore, the lower courts should respond to these crucial inquiries before proceeding with the appointment of the Special Counsel.
Due to improper funding, insufficient appointment procedures by the president and senate, and a lack of statutory authority, Judge Cannon determined that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. Naturally, Smith has appealed this decision, however, a federal appeals court would need to overturn Judge Cannon’s decision for this case to proceed.
Fulton County, Georgia: Prosecution by DA Fani Willis for Questioning Election Results
What remains of the left’s assault on the former president is somewhat unimpressive. As it turns out that District Attorney Fani Willis had been having an expensive affair with her special assistant district attorney ( who, coincidentally, had been hired specifically to work on this case ), the election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia, is more reminiscent of a Jerry Springer episode than of a local prosecutor holding the power accountable.
Although the court rejected the case’s viability, it is clear that Willis could benefit financially from keeping the case alive by wine and dining with his boss. This is true, according to Margot Cleveland of The Federalist:” Willis could benefit personally without benefiting financially by bestowing her beau with a cushy county contract, whether it helped her curry favor with Wade, or by giving her a chance to spend more time with her lover.”
The indictment is still in place for the time being, but the prosecutor’s credibility is in question.
In Trump, the court noted that the former president has argued that communicating with state officials about the integrity of a federal election is” bsolutely an official act of the president.” The Supreme Court’s decision could defame Willis ‘ lawfare campaign if she does n’t do so on her own first because the majority of Willis ‘ case is based on a phone call Trump made with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger about the 2020 presidential election.
In short, Trump and Fischer, and the downfall of Fani Willis, collectively mean that the Democrats ‘ larger lawfare project has all but collapsed. The comprehensive effort to denigrate President Trump has been effectively slowed down. Democrats are undoubtedly trying to find more novel charges to bring against the former president, but the judicial branch must stand strong as a moral guard in the face of Republican animosity.  ,
Erielle Davidson is an associate with Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinksy &, Josefiak PLLC, while Steve Roberts is a partner. They can be reached at sroberts @holtzmanvogel.com and [email protected].
