The Case against Donald Trump in the High Court: Special Counsel Jack Smith and the 2019 ‘Fake’ Donald Trump Corrigendum
Special Counsel Jack Smith says the judge in the case against Donald Trump was wrong to throw out the case.
In her ruling last month, Judge Cannon said that Attorney General Merrick Garland exceeded his constitutional authority in appointing a prosecutor who was not subject to Congressional approval. She said the Special Counsel position would threaten the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers.
Precedent and history shows that attorneys general and Congress support the practice of special-counsel appointments. Special Counsels have been appointed by Attorneys’ General for more than 150 years, Smith points out, and were used after the Civil War to prosecute Jefferson Davis for treason and a conspirator involved in the assassination of President Lincoln.
They have 30 days to reply to Smith. Smith believes that the oral arguments would assist the Court in its decisional process of significant public importance.
There is new evidence in the case that was presented to a new grand jury. The papers say the new indictment “reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions.”
The Justice Department won’t insist that President Donald Trump make an in-person appearance for the new indictment, according to a new court filing. The Justice Department said it will confer with Trump’s lawyers and try to come up with a joint proposal for how to proceed in the case. An update by Friday was requested by Judge Chutkan.
Jack Smith has been consulting with other officials inside the Justice Department for weeks about the case in which Trump is accused of leading a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The scheme allegedly culminated in a cascade of violent attacks on police at the U.S. Capitol three years ago.
Trump has denied the charges. His lawyers said that President Trump’s words and actions on January 6, 2021, constituted legitimate inquiry about election fraud. The Supreme Court gave Trump immunity from prosecution for certain actions that are important to his official duties.
The high court ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, specifically carved out part of the case where Trump had been accused of misusing the Justice Department to pursue phony theories of fraud at the ballot box. There are a lot of critical questions for a D.C. trial judge to pursue from the opinion.
The case won’t be tried in time for the election. If Trump becomes president, he can order his appointees at the Justice Department to drop it next year.
