Staff Reports
For those still deciphering the tangled web of legalese surrounding former President Donald Trump, it seems that Special Counsel Jack Smith is determined to take the convoluted path, ignoring major precedent set by the Supreme Court. Earlier this year, the nation’s highest court issued noteworthy rulings that significantly favored Trump regarding presidential immunity and federal obstruction statutes, evidently sending a clear signal about the overstretch of federal prosecutors. Yet, here we are, with Smith being less of a lawman and more of a legal Rambo, hell-bent on pursuing what many see as a floundering indictment against the former president.
In a delightful twist of irony, Smith has taken a 14-year-old ruling penned by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, to bolster his case against the former president. The same Gorsuch who ruled in alignment with the belief that ex-presidents enjoy substantial immunity from prosecution is now being woefully misapplied by Smith, who appears to be banging the gavel on an outdated judgment in a desperate bid to tie Trump to alleged wrongdoings that align with the Supreme Court’s own recent conclusions.
Powerful Supreme Court amicus brief by legal heavyweights.
Including vocal Never Trumper Steven Calabresi.
They make a persuasive argument Garland’s appointment of Jack Smith is unconstitutional.
Thus, Jack Smith’s prosecutions of Trump are illegal.https://t.co/9vsSrThP6l pic.twitter.com/Tg38B15YK7
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) February 22, 2024
Smith’s antics reached new heights recently when he lodged a nine-page brief, attempting to validate charges against Trump stemming from an alleged “fake electors” scheme in the wake of the 2020 election. He appeared particularly fixated on the language of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which pertains to obstructing official proceedings. However, this is the same statute the Supreme Court criticized for being misapplied against numerous January 6 defendants, suggesting that it was originally intended for much more straightforward scenarios, such as preventing individuals from destroying evidence in financial crimes.
What’s astonishing about Smith’s maneuvering is his blatant disregard for the Fischer decision, where a majority of justices determined that prosecutors were indeed overreaching with their applications of § 1512. Instead of taking heed from the Court’s interpretation, Smith dove headfirst into the murky waters of the charges against Trump, arguing that somehow fraudulent electoral certificates amounted to obstructing Congress. One has to wonder if Smith is drawing from a different law book entirely.
The defiant Trump campaign didn’t remain silent in response to Smith’s latest antics. Spokesman Steven Cheung wasted no time in condemning Smith’s brief as yet another example of how “radical Democrats” are conspiring to interfere with the 2024 election cycle. Trump’s camp asserts that the entire situation is a partisan witch hunt, a glitzy display of political theater designed to distract from the fact that the former president is leading in the polls. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, they maintain that this indictment lacks any merit and is ripe for dismissal, just like the other myriad “hoaxes” the left has thrown Trump’s way.
The legal shenanigans surrounding Trump paint a vivid picture: a special counsel so tangled in his own convictions that he forfeits clarity. As he tries using a judge’s old ruling that serves his purposes, the whole spectacle begs the question: shouldn’t equal application of the law be a priority rather than pursuing partisan vendettas? Perhaps Smith would do well to reflect on the principles of justice rather than dragging the nation through yet another drawn-out, circus-like trial.
