Staff Reports
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. United States has thrown a massive wrench into special counsel Jack Smith’s plans. In a decision that has given the Left nightmares, the court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that a president is immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts,” but can still be prosecuted for unofficial ones. However, the ruling’s lack of clarity on what defines an “official act” versus an “unofficial act” means that lower courts will now have to play a game of legal Charades to figure out where to draw the line.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who penned the majority opinion, essentially told the lower courts, “Good luck!” He invoked the 2016 Supreme Court decision that overturned the conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell. Interestingly, this case was also spearheaded by none other than Jack Smith. Much like Trump, McDonnell’s case centered on what can be considered an “official act,” which prosecutors clearly flubbed by defining too broadly. Looks like Smith might need a refresher course on his own previous blunders.
I found this on NewsBreak: Jack Smith becomes his own worst enemy in fight to get Trump
https://t.co/htOMmvW2ME— Steve Metal Man (@sestrella63) July 15, 2024
For those keeping score, Jack Smith is now a two-time loser in the Supreme Court Olympics. Legal experts are practically rolling their eyes, predicting that Smith, who seems to dream of a world where every Trump action is a felony, might want to rethink his ambitious strategy. The immunity decision is expected to limit the evidence prosecutors can present in Trump’s various indictments, including in New York, Florida, and the always-entertaining Georgia case.
Smith continues to cling to the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial like a bad habit, despite the growing consensus that there’s no way these cases can be settled before the 2024 presidential election. Let’s face it: The idea that these cases will wrap up before Trump potentially regains the Oval Office is as laughable as Smith’s previous courtroom escapades. Apparently, Smith missed the memo that the Constitution’s Bill of Rights is designed to protect citizens from government overreach—not to hamstring them with rushed, politically-timed trials.
Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is gearing up to dive back into the Smith-induced legal morass in August. But Trump’s lawyers are expected to pull out every legal trick in the book to delay, delay, and delay some more. After all, why not let the Trump re-election campaign enjoy a front-row seat to Jack Smith’s ongoing legal clown show?
Jack Smith is now scrambling, akin to a cat in a room full of rocking chairs, trying to navigate a legal labyrinth that he himself largely constructed. Legal analyst Richard Kelsey nailed it when he suggested that Smith needs to review his indictment with a fine-tooth comb to weed out anything that could be protected by immunity. Smith’s previous insistence on painting Trump’s actions with the broadest brush available might just come back to bite him.
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any messier, Trump is also challenging the very legality of Smith’s appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland. This legal wrinkle, highlighted by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, could very well add to Smith’s mounting list of headaches. Some experts are even speculating that if Smith’s appointment is ruled illegal, every case he’s touched could potentially unravel faster than a discount sweater.
In summary, while Jack Smith might have thought he had a slam dunk with his aggressive legal strategy, the Supreme Court has essentially handed him a legal Rubik’s Cube. With Trump’s legal eagles ready to pounce on each and every misstep, the real courtroom drama is only just beginning. Smith would do well to remind himself that text-heavy indictments don’t win cases—careful, precise, and fair prosecution does. Or maybe he’ll just keep swinging for the fences and striking out. Either way, pass the popcorn.
