Jack Smith’s odds of putting Trump on trial this year are sinking
The USSC foreshadowed a long slog for Trump’s D.C. case,
while his Florida charges have similarly stalled.
April 25, 2024. | Francis Chung/POLITICO / By KYLE CHENEY and JOSH GERSTEIN, poitico
The already-slim likelihood that Donald Trump will face a criminal trial brought by special counsel Jack Smith before the 2024 election appeared to dwindle further Thursday in the face of withering scrutiny from the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.
One by one, the court’s six Republican-appointed justices — including three nominated by Trump himself — took whacks at Smith’s effort to quickly and cleanly reject Trump’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution over his attempt to subvert the 2020 election.
Instead, during more than 2 1/2 hours of oral argument, the justices forecast a result that could require lower courts to spend months analyzing various aspects of Trump’s election plot, from organizing fraudulent slates of electors to leaning on his Justice Department to sow false doubts about the results. The purpose of those additional lower-court proceedings, several conservative justices suggested, would be to determine if some of the acts alleged in the special counsel’s indictment count as sufficiently “official” presidential duties that they ought to be shielded from criminal charges.
Even if Smith were to win those battles, it would virtually ensure that a trial could not happen until after the election.
The trial in the case was initially scheduled to begin in March of this year. But the proceedings in the trial court have been frozen for months while Trump has pursued his claim that he enjoys absolute immunity from any charges touching on his official acts.
While Smith looked on from a counsel table, the justices repeatedly emphasized the repercussions of their decision for the future of the republic, counseling a slower approach that is almost certain to push a potential trial into 2025 — and potentially foreclose it altogether if Trump wins the election and unravels the case. In fact, the conservatives on the court repeatedly insisted they were not opining on the specific charges against Trump or even particularly concerned about it.
“I’m not focused on the here and now of this case,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee. “I’m very concerned about the future.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch, another Trump appointee, agreed. “I’m not as concerned about this case so much as a future one,” he said. “We’re writing a rule for the ages.”
Their protestations contrasted with those of the court’s outnumbered liberals, who repeatedly challenged Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, on his claim that Trump’s efforts to assemble false slates of electors or pressure state officials to help his reelection could be construed as “official acts” of a president rather than the “private” conduct of a political candidate.
The three liberal justices warned that giving Trump broad protection from prosecution would serve as a green light to future presidents to break the law with abandon.
“The most powerful person in the world could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked. “What disincentive is there for turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminality in this country?”
But most of the court’s six conservatives seemed more troubled by the possibility of runaway, retributive prosecutions against former presidents than with the idea that presidents would act lawlessly.
“Reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough,” Chief Justice John Roberts said as he scoffed at the unanimous D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that found former presidents enjoy no immunity in criminal cases.
Roberts appeared open to the prospect of ordering the D.C. Circuit to conduct a more nuanced analysis.
“Why shouldn’t we send it back to the court of appeals?” Roberts asked Michael Dreeben, who argued on behalf of the special counsel.
“What concerns me is, as you know, the Court of Appeals did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we’re talking about or what documents we’re talking about,” Roberts said.
Three other justices — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — also suggested that further proceedings in the lower courts may be necessary.
The conservative justices’ signaling was a significant blow to Smith, whose other criminal case against Trump — charging the former president with hoarding classified secrets in his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving office — is teetering amid a pileup of pretrial disputes and unusual decisions from the presiding judge, Aileen Cannon, also a Trump appointee. It has no clear trial schedule.
snip
After years of lying and hiding, it took months to make documents available to Americans to reveal what the corrupt Biden/Obama gang was after in its loathsome FBi raid on Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
<><>the doddering dithering Biden wanted to highlight Trump’s classified documents
<><>docs that might neutralize Biden/Obama’s classified influence-peddling sales,
<><>they figured Trump had documents implicating them in Hillary’s Russian dossier scam.
Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein, Biden appointees, display their plot to slander the 45th President of the United States with false and intentionally misleading smears.
Cheney and Gerstein employ fake and potentially illegal “facts” in discussing this fable.
Like that Cheney and Gerstein, you pukes?
The emperor has no clothes. If this case is about justice and the DOJ sat on it for 3 years, then why is it so imperative to have the trial concluded before the election? Justice? Pffffft.
Bald faced politics. At least the public is seeing through it.
EC
No. Because "the most powerful person in the world" doesn't just automatically become a dim-o-crat when they go into the office. 🙄🤬
What brought you to FR?
Another issue at hand would be President Biden.
If Trump is tried for crimes then Biden can be yanked from the White House and jailed until he puts up a $Zillion bail money
Considering the depth of the fraud, organizing the slates of electors was justified; the problem was Pence’s failure to refer the matter to the states to decide, as Nixon did in 1962, when Hawaii sent two slates. The states would likely have given Trump the electors since there was overwhelming evidence that he did win those states. On any case, Pence’s failure to recognize his most important constitutional duty was the chief executive officer presiding over federal elections and not the master of ceremonies, is the reason for this terrible state our country is in. Mike pence has surpassed Benedict Arnold and every other traitor this country has ever known. If ever there should be a man without a country, that man is Michael Pence.