This submission source is likely to have a hard paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> “incorrect flair””. [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s recent filing to the D.C. District Court in the Trump v. United States presidential-immunity case both fleshes out and sharpens the evidence of Donald Trump’s sprawling criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. To understand the filing’s larger significance as well as its limitations, we must first review a bit of recent history.
In its shocking decision on July 1 to grant the presidency at least presumed immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority showed once again that it was intent on immunizing one president in particular: Donald Trump. The Court majority’s decision, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, was explicit. It held, for example, that Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure then–Vice President Mike Pence into voiding the 2020 election results on January 6 constituted “official conduct” from which Trump “is at least presumptively immune from prosecution.” That presumed immunity, the Court contended, would disappear only if the prosecution could convince the courts that bringing the case to trial would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
The Court thus remanded the case back to the D.C. District Court to decide the matter, along with the question of whether Trump is actually immune to the rest of the charges against him. How, though, could the prosecution of a president or former president over an “official act” fail to intrude on presidential authority? Seemingly, anything pertaining to Trump’s contacts with the vice president as he presided in his constitutional role as president of the Senate—as well as Trump’s contacts with the Department of Justice, which the Court also singled out and which the prosecution, significantly, felt compelled to omit from its revised indictment—deserves, as the Court sees it, virtually ironclad protection, a powerful blow against the entire January 6 indictment.
Although the sweeping outcome of Trump v. United States took most legal commentators by surprise, its protection of Trump was completely predictable given the Court’s previous conduct regarding the January 6 insurrection. The refusal of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to recuse themselves from any matter related to the insurrection despite their own conflicted positions—Thomas because of his wife’s, Ginni Thomas’s, direct involvement in the subversion; Alito because of his flag-waving support of Trump’s election denials—has received the most public attention about the Court majority’s partisan partiality. But another set of telltale signs becomes apparent after a closer tracking of the Court’s decision making.
Almost as soon as the case against Trump came before D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Supreme Court played along with the Trump lawyers’ efforts to delay the trial until after the November 2024 election. First, after Chutkan ruled against Trump’s absolute-immunity claims in December 2023, Special Counsel Smith asked the Supreme Court to expedite matters by hearing the case immediately, not waiting for the U.S. Court of Appeals to rule on Trump’s appeal of Chutkan’s decision. The Supreme Court refused. Two months later, though, when the appeals court ruled against Trump and set a new trial date, the Supreme Court dragged its feet for as long as possible before announcing that it would take up the case after all. It then set the date for oral arguments as late as possible, at the end of April. This meant that even before hearing the case, the Court made it highly unlikely that Trump’s trial would proceed in a timely manner, effectively immunizing Trump until after the election.
Although radical in its long-term reconstruction of the American presidency, the ruling more immediately affirmed and extended the Court’s protection of Trump from prosecution. By remanding the case to the D.C. Circuit Court to decide what in the indictment constitutes official (and, therefore, presumably immune) conduct, the justices guaranteed that no trial would occur until after Election Day. After that, meanwhile, should Trump win the election, no trial would occur at all, because he would certainly fire Smith and shut down the proceedings.
GammaRaystogo on
Well worth the time to read.
chillywanton on
I’d like to just keep this short and sweet: Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion hooked us up.
Last-Juggernaut4664 on
The Supreme Court will just continue to move the goalposts. The only way this can be corrected is with long-needed major judiciary reform legislation, and that’s only possible if the Democrats take the White House and majorities in the House and Senate, with the possible elimination of the filibuster.
Antisocial-sKills on
Trump will just kick the J6 case back to SCOTUS where ‘tipping’ judges is normal.
How much ‘justice’ can you afford?
AdorableIce1587 on
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump’s immunity really complicates accountability for his actions surrounding the 2020 election. It feels like they’re bending the rules to protect him, which sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
Pituophis on
SCOTUS to Jack Smith: Hold my beer.
CDavis10717 on
Malicious compliance.
isikorsky on
Friendly reminder that SCOTUS knew how it was going to vote on this case in February 2024 when they took the case after denying Jack Smith the ability to go directly to them in November/December 2023.
How did they delay this ?
* They didn’t hear the case until the last day of arguments (April 2024)
* They didn’t issue the ruling till the last day of rulings (July 1 2024).
The release of the private notes of Chief Justice Roberts showed you that
* They discarded the DC CoA ruling. Most legal minds thought it was complete and no need for SCOTUS to hear the case. CJ Roberts ridiculed it.
* That when Gorsuch said “Ruling of Ages” in April arguments he was quoting Roberts statement in his emails on how they were ruling. ACB was the lone conservative judge who pointed out the obvious – there was no way to enforce Roberts ruling without guidelines (and why she voted against part of it).
* CJ Roberts shut out the minority justices. Typically on these type of rulings you do not do that. Sotomayor tried to find common ground with the Conservative justices in hopes of tempering the ruling. Roberts refused to engage.
* CJ Roberts misquoted a legal case to make his made up immunity claim
Is Trump sitting in a cell in Florence? No – then it seems like the Supreme Court outsmarted Jack Smith.
rounder55 on
It’s also that the word outsmart needs only needs to be applied because the Supreme Court is stacked with corrupt justices who are actively working to ignore the law
ChrysMYO on
We’ve been in a full fledged Constitutional crisis since RBG died.
With either a Trump or Kamala win, the Supreme court has managed to contradict itself. With the original ruling, they implied that the executive branch had any role in elections. And ACB noted they had no official guidelines.
So if Trump wins, their ruling empowers Trump to always shut down his own investigations. Without having to go thru the cycle of firing different AGs.
If Kamala wins, they’ll likely want to curtail her power. If they still rule in Trump’s favor regarding official acts, they may wind up handing a Democratic President unlimited power for 8 to 16 years.
Secondly, if Kamala wins they’ll likely have to look at a Trump challenge to the election. They can completely delegitimize their branch while allowing Trump to gain more power on them if they rule in his favor. If they rule in Kamala’s favor, they crack the Republican party in half.
teddytwelvetoes on
Trump’s still a free man being allowed to run for the government that he tried to violently overthrow on live television several years ago lol
CarGuyBuddy on
TLDR: Special Counsel Jack Smith’s recent filing in the Trump v. United States case enhances the evidence of Donald Trump’s criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. Following a Supreme Court ruling on July 1 that granted Trump presumed immunity for “official acts,” the case was remanded to the D.C. District Court to determine the nature of Trump’s immunity regarding various charges.
The ruling, seen as protective of Trump, complicates the prosecution’s path, as it implies that any actions connected to official duties might be immune from legal consequences. Smith’s filing, however, meticulously argues that Trump’s actions surrounding the January 6 insurrection do not fall under official conduct, highlighting that his efforts to overturn the election were part of a private conspiracy initiated months before the election.
Smith presents detailed evidence of Trump’s behavior, including his disregard for the safety of then-Vice President Mike Pence during the Capitol riots. The filing asserts that Trump’s interactions with Pence and state officials, along with other actions, were unofficial and therefore not protected by the Court’s immunity ruling.
While Smith’s arguments effectively challenge the Supreme Court’s protective stance, the Court’s decision still limits the scope of prosecution, allowing Trump significant leeway to evade accountability. The potential for future legal battles hinges on the outcomes of upcoming elections, raising concerns about the Court’s role in further legitimizing Trump’s actions. Overall, Smith’s filing seeks to push back against an empowered presidency that the Court has inadvertently shielded from accountability.
thehildabeast on
They are unqualified right wing nutcases who know way less than they pretend they do. Anyone can poke holes in their dumbass logic. They will just strike it down again if needed unless their bosses tell them not to.
TheShipEliza on
Its like no one understand it doesn’t matter what jack smith does. The court can do whatever it wants.
twesterm on
>Here the logic of Smith’s argument cuts to the quick. By the Court majority’s own standard, as stated in his Trump v. United States decision, the presumption of immunity for official actions would disappear only if a prosecutor could demonstrate that bringing criminal charges against a president or former president would not present “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Because certification of a presidential election, the subject of Trump’s “official” pressuring, involves neither the authority nor the functions of the executive branch, the immunity claims concerning that pressuring are therefore groundless—according to the Court majority’s own logic.
Willing to bet all those Constitutional absolutists are suddenly going to be very interested in interpreting what the Constitution says.
Slocko on
Thank you for sharing the text of the article.
Hazywater on
I’m pretty sure the supreme court’s decision was inherently flawed, poorly thought out, and poorly executed. It was never meant to stand the test of time and competent prosecutors, merely long enough to allow trump to get “elected.”
Zeabos on
Another moral victory! This time Trump did in real trouble. The “legal walls are closing in!”
WrestleswithPastry on
“…the *corrupt* Supreme Court.”
FTFY.
JustYerAverage on
I mean…dark Brandon has all the same new powers Drumph had. If the GOP fuck around I hope they find themselves at the bad end of “official acts”…
916cycler on
Supreme Court will just keep moving the goalposts
flugenblar on
Hmm… he doesn’t have a trial underway yet. I’m holding out on saying he outsmarted anyone.
Kritt33 on
remember back in school when they said impeachment meant removal from office
RuthlessIndecision on
God dammit, it’s like Donald Trump is made of money or something
crashomon on
Boy I sure hope so.
WaffleBurger27 on
Whatever charges are brought against Trump, his team will just dispute whether or not they were part of his official duties or not and that will be tied up in the courts for years until it gets up to the supreme court. And we know how they will rule.
I don’t believe there is any clear definition of the line between a presidents official and unofficial duties.
The United States system of government and justice is broken. It was never meant to be able to handle malevolent psychopaths working to destroy it from the inside.
Kinnins0n on
The fact that the media barely reported on it means that outsmarting the Supreme Court achieved nothing.
The media wants the horse race, and is low-key fine with Trump getting back into power.
FanDry5374 on
If the Roberts court is going all in on trump and Project 2025, they will still overturn any conviction, because they left themselves as the final arbiters of just what “presidential duties” entail. They have zero shame and Robert’s seems to have given up on having a “positive legacy” for his court. We can only hope beyond hope that the election doesn’t get to them or we are screwed as a country.
Working_Pollution272 on
Yes.I don’t usually swear. You go Jack. The whole world will be a better place. You have to get him. Friendly 🇨🇦❤️☮️
xthemoonx on
It’s not difficult to outsmart conservatives.
DoneFlawlessIII on
4 Nm,
J-the-Kidder on
Unfortunately,I don’t think he’s outsmarted anyone. In fact,I think he was a little naive thinking the media and public would crucify King Cheetoh with the release of his immunity argument. But there in lies the issue, nothing released to the public will rid us of the Trump cancer. If that was possible, it could have been done countless – not exaggerating – times already. But here we are. His release was here and gone like a fart in a hurricane and Trump is still on the campaign trail with next to no drop in polling.
APirateAndAJedi on
Honestly, a well played game of tic tac toe would have done it. The current court is heavy on bravado, light on brains
Background_Home7092 on
With all due respect, he didn’t outsmart shit until we see the orange failure in handcuffs.
37 Comments
This submission source is likely to have a hard paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> “incorrect flair””. [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://archive.ph/Ku7Z4
Article text:
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s recent filing to the D.C. District Court in the Trump v. United States presidential-immunity case both fleshes out and sharpens the evidence of Donald Trump’s sprawling criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. To understand the filing’s larger significance as well as its limitations, we must first review a bit of recent history.
In its shocking decision on July 1 to grant the presidency at least presumed immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority showed once again that it was intent on immunizing one president in particular: Donald Trump. The Court majority’s decision, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, was explicit. It held, for example, that Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure then–Vice President Mike Pence into voiding the 2020 election results on January 6 constituted “official conduct” from which Trump “is at least presumptively immune from prosecution.” That presumed immunity, the Court contended, would disappear only if the prosecution could convince the courts that bringing the case to trial would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
The Court thus remanded the case back to the D.C. District Court to decide the matter, along with the question of whether Trump is actually immune to the rest of the charges against him. How, though, could the prosecution of a president or former president over an “official act” fail to intrude on presidential authority? Seemingly, anything pertaining to Trump’s contacts with the vice president as he presided in his constitutional role as president of the Senate—as well as Trump’s contacts with the Department of Justice, which the Court also singled out and which the prosecution, significantly, felt compelled to omit from its revised indictment—deserves, as the Court sees it, virtually ironclad protection, a powerful blow against the entire January 6 indictment.
Although the sweeping outcome of Trump v. United States took most legal commentators by surprise, its protection of Trump was completely predictable given the Court’s previous conduct regarding the January 6 insurrection. The refusal of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to recuse themselves from any matter related to the insurrection despite their own conflicted positions—Thomas because of his wife’s, Ginni Thomas’s, direct involvement in the subversion; Alito because of his flag-waving support of Trump’s election denials—has received the most public attention about the Court majority’s partisan partiality. But another set of telltale signs becomes apparent after a closer tracking of the Court’s decision making.
Almost as soon as the case against Trump came before D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Supreme Court played along with the Trump lawyers’ efforts to delay the trial until after the November 2024 election. First, after Chutkan ruled against Trump’s absolute-immunity claims in December 2023, Special Counsel Smith asked the Supreme Court to expedite matters by hearing the case immediately, not waiting for the U.S. Court of Appeals to rule on Trump’s appeal of Chutkan’s decision. The Supreme Court refused. Two months later, though, when the appeals court ruled against Trump and set a new trial date, the Supreme Court dragged its feet for as long as possible before announcing that it would take up the case after all. It then set the date for oral arguments as late as possible, at the end of April. This meant that even before hearing the case, the Court made it highly unlikely that Trump’s trial would proceed in a timely manner, effectively immunizing Trump until after the election.
Although radical in its long-term reconstruction of the American presidency, the ruling more immediately affirmed and extended the Court’s protection of Trump from prosecution. By remanding the case to the D.C. Circuit Court to decide what in the indictment constitutes official (and, therefore, presumably immune) conduct, the justices guaranteed that no trial would occur until after Election Day. After that, meanwhile, should Trump win the election, no trial would occur at all, because he would certainly fire Smith and shut down the proceedings.
Well worth the time to read.
I’d like to just keep this short and sweet: Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion hooked us up.
The Supreme Court will just continue to move the goalposts. The only way this can be corrected is with long-needed major judiciary reform legislation, and that’s only possible if the Democrats take the White House and majorities in the House and Senate, with the possible elimination of the filibuster.
Trump will just kick the J6 case back to SCOTUS where ‘tipping’ judges is normal.
How much ‘justice’ can you afford?
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump’s immunity really complicates accountability for his actions surrounding the 2020 election. It feels like they’re bending the rules to protect him, which sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
SCOTUS to Jack Smith: Hold my beer.
Malicious compliance.
Friendly reminder that SCOTUS knew how it was going to vote on this case in February 2024 when they took the case after denying Jack Smith the ability to go directly to them in November/December 2023.
How did they delay this ?
* They didn’t hear the case until the last day of arguments (April 2024)
* They didn’t issue the ruling till the last day of rulings (July 1 2024).
The release of the private notes of Chief Justice Roberts showed you that
* They discarded the DC CoA ruling. Most legal minds thought it was complete and no need for SCOTUS to hear the case. CJ Roberts ridiculed it.
* That when Gorsuch said “Ruling of Ages” in April arguments he was quoting Roberts statement in his emails on how they were ruling. ACB was the lone conservative judge who pointed out the obvious – there was no way to enforce Roberts ruling without guidelines (and why she voted against part of it).
* CJ Roberts shut out the minority justices. Typically on these type of rulings you do not do that. Sotomayor tried to find common ground with the Conservative justices in hopes of tempering the ruling. Roberts refused to engage.
* CJ Roberts misquoted a legal case to make his made up immunity claim
Besides reading “The Shadow ~~Document~~ Docket”, highly recommend reading [NY Law Emeritus paper on this ruling](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-rule-for-the-ages–or-a-rule-for-trump)
Is Trump sitting in a cell in Florence? No – then it seems like the Supreme Court outsmarted Jack Smith.
It’s also that the word outsmart needs only needs to be applied because the Supreme Court is stacked with corrupt justices who are actively working to ignore the law
We’ve been in a full fledged Constitutional crisis since RBG died.
With either a Trump or Kamala win, the Supreme court has managed to contradict itself. With the original ruling, they implied that the executive branch had any role in elections. And ACB noted they had no official guidelines.
So if Trump wins, their ruling empowers Trump to always shut down his own investigations. Without having to go thru the cycle of firing different AGs.
If Kamala wins, they’ll likely want to curtail her power. If they still rule in Trump’s favor regarding official acts, they may wind up handing a Democratic President unlimited power for 8 to 16 years.
Secondly, if Kamala wins they’ll likely have to look at a Trump challenge to the election. They can completely delegitimize their branch while allowing Trump to gain more power on them if they rule in his favor. If they rule in Kamala’s favor, they crack the Republican party in half.
Trump’s still a free man being allowed to run for the government that he tried to violently overthrow on live television several years ago lol
TLDR: Special Counsel Jack Smith’s recent filing in the Trump v. United States case enhances the evidence of Donald Trump’s criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. Following a Supreme Court ruling on July 1 that granted Trump presumed immunity for “official acts,” the case was remanded to the D.C. District Court to determine the nature of Trump’s immunity regarding various charges.
The ruling, seen as protective of Trump, complicates the prosecution’s path, as it implies that any actions connected to official duties might be immune from legal consequences. Smith’s filing, however, meticulously argues that Trump’s actions surrounding the January 6 insurrection do not fall under official conduct, highlighting that his efforts to overturn the election were part of a private conspiracy initiated months before the election.
Smith presents detailed evidence of Trump’s behavior, including his disregard for the safety of then-Vice President Mike Pence during the Capitol riots. The filing asserts that Trump’s interactions with Pence and state officials, along with other actions, were unofficial and therefore not protected by the Court’s immunity ruling.
While Smith’s arguments effectively challenge the Supreme Court’s protective stance, the Court’s decision still limits the scope of prosecution, allowing Trump significant leeway to evade accountability. The potential for future legal battles hinges on the outcomes of upcoming elections, raising concerns about the Court’s role in further legitimizing Trump’s actions. Overall, Smith’s filing seeks to push back against an empowered presidency that the Court has inadvertently shielded from accountability.
They are unqualified right wing nutcases who know way less than they pretend they do. Anyone can poke holes in their dumbass logic. They will just strike it down again if needed unless their bosses tell them not to.
Its like no one understand it doesn’t matter what jack smith does. The court can do whatever it wants.
>Here the logic of Smith’s argument cuts to the quick. By the Court majority’s own standard, as stated in his Trump v. United States decision, the presumption of immunity for official actions would disappear only if a prosecutor could demonstrate that bringing criminal charges against a president or former president would not present “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Because certification of a presidential election, the subject of Trump’s “official” pressuring, involves neither the authority nor the functions of the executive branch, the immunity claims concerning that pressuring are therefore groundless—according to the Court majority’s own logic.
Willing to bet all those Constitutional absolutists are suddenly going to be very interested in interpreting what the Constitution says.
Thank you for sharing the text of the article.
I’m pretty sure the supreme court’s decision was inherently flawed, poorly thought out, and poorly executed. It was never meant to stand the test of time and competent prosecutors, merely long enough to allow trump to get “elected.”
Another moral victory! This time Trump did in real trouble. The “legal walls are closing in!”
“…the *corrupt* Supreme Court.”
FTFY.
I mean…dark Brandon has all the same new powers Drumph had. If the GOP fuck around I hope they find themselves at the bad end of “official acts”…
Supreme Court will just keep moving the goalposts
Hmm… he doesn’t have a trial underway yet. I’m holding out on saying he outsmarted anyone.
remember back in school when they said impeachment meant removal from office
God dammit, it’s like Donald Trump is made of money or something
Boy I sure hope so.
Whatever charges are brought against Trump, his team will just dispute whether or not they were part of his official duties or not and that will be tied up in the courts for years until it gets up to the supreme court. And we know how they will rule.
I don’t believe there is any clear definition of the line between a presidents official and unofficial duties.
The United States system of government and justice is broken. It was never meant to be able to handle malevolent psychopaths working to destroy it from the inside.
The fact that the media barely reported on it means that outsmarting the Supreme Court achieved nothing.
The media wants the horse race, and is low-key fine with Trump getting back into power.
If the Roberts court is going all in on trump and Project 2025, they will still overturn any conviction, because they left themselves as the final arbiters of just what “presidential duties” entail. They have zero shame and Robert’s seems to have given up on having a “positive legacy” for his court. We can only hope beyond hope that the election doesn’t get to them or we are screwed as a country.
Yes.I don’t usually swear. You go Jack. The whole world will be a better place. You have to get him. Friendly 🇨🇦❤️☮️
It’s not difficult to outsmart conservatives.
4 Nm,
Unfortunately,I don’t think he’s outsmarted anyone. In fact,I think he was a little naive thinking the media and public would crucify King Cheetoh with the release of his immunity argument. But there in lies the issue, nothing released to the public will rid us of the Trump cancer. If that was possible, it could have been done countless – not exaggerating – times already. But here we are. His release was here and gone like a fart in a hurricane and Trump is still on the campaign trail with next to no drop in polling.
Honestly, a well played game of tic tac toe would have done it. The current court is heavy on bravado, light on brains
With all due respect, he didn’t outsmart shit until we see the orange failure in handcuffs.