Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jack Smith Could Be On Shaky Ground In Trump Charge: Analysts
Epoch Times ^ | 11/06/2023 | Jack Phillips

Posted on 11/06/2023 9:52:07 PM PST by SeekAndFind

Two analysts have noted that special counsel Jack Smith might be on shaky legal ground in his federal election-related case against former President Donald Trump.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, said that the Trump charge of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding hasn't been "extensively litigated" over the past several decades, adding that a ruling could come on whether it is appropriate in the former president's case.

Multiple defendants who were charged in connection to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach have "argued that Congress certifying the electoral votes was not an 'official proceeding' and courts have universally rejected that argument," she told Newsweek last week.

"This bigger question is, what satisfies the 'corruptly' requirement? Is it any criminal conduct, such as trespassing in the Capitol building or submitting fake electors? Or does the corrupt conduct have to relate to the other subsections of 1512, which prohibit destroying or concealing evidence?" she asked.

She continued: "If the corruption requires consciousness of guilt, then Trump can argue that he genuinely believed the election was stolen. Either way, this issue will likely end up before the United States Supreme Court because it is a novel issue that affects hundreds of criminal defendants, including the former president."

Lawfare's Roger Parloff wrote in a recent article that the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently won two "fragile" victories in two cases involving Jan. 6 defendants, and Mr. Smith has "relied on [a] statute" that was used by other prosecutors to charge at least 317 individuals in the Jan. 6 case.

"Smith has relied on that statute and its conspiracy equivalent, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k), for two of the four counts in his indictment against former President Donald Trump for allegedly conspiring to overthrow the 2020 election," Mr. Parloff wrote. "Those counts, whose legal sufficiency Trump challenged in a motion to dismiss this week, are the most serious leveled against Trump in that case, carrying a maximum 20-year term of imprisonment."

Three appellants in a Jan. 6 case are now petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review a recent appeals court ruling that favored the DOJ, he noted, but he said that the D.C. appeals court judges "can't agree about its holdings, and its holdings determine the viability of a 20-year felony that an ex-president and major presidential candidate now stands charged with violating."

"Moreover, at the appeals court level, judges' acceptance of the Justice Department's interpretations of that law have been 100 percent correlated with the political party of the judge's appointer," he wrote.

"If that trend continues, and if either case climbs one more rung up the appellate ladder, the department (and Mr. Smith) faces bleak prospects indeed."

The comments come as constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley warned that the gag order targeting President Donald Trump is "unconstitutional" and said that an appeals court ruling to rescind the order last week was a "quite significant" development.

Several weeks ago, District of Columbia Judge Tanya Chutkan placed a gag order on the former president in the Jan. 6-related case, saying President Trump cannot speak about potential witnesses, court staff, or prosecutors. An appeals court in the district froze Judge Chutkan's order late last week, with oral arguments being set for Nov. 20.

“They could have left it to continue, to continue while they reviewed it, but they decided perhaps in an abundance of caution to order this stoppage until they can give it a full review,” Mr. Turley, a professor for George Washington University, said on Fox News on Nov. 3. “The reason I think this could be quite significant is because I think the order is unconstitutional.”

He added that it is "very odd" to issue the order because the same court "insisted on having this trial before the election, sort of shoehorned it in before Super Tuesday," referring to the key GOP presidential nominating date.

“And everyone in this election is going to be talking about these cases," the law professor said, "except one person under this gag order and that is Donald Trump.”

With the order, the former president "can’t criticize the prosecutors, he can’t criticize witnesses, and special counsel Jack Smith just asked for this order to be expanded in an equally unconstitutional way, and that has drawn the criticism even of the ACLU, which is a staunch critic of Donald Trump, but the ACLU has said look, this is flagrantly unconstitutional," Mr. Turley said, referring to the American Civil Liberties Union.

On Nov. 3, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote they were pausing Judge Chutkan's order to provide them more time to consider the former president's request while his appeal continues. The three judges on the appeals court panel were all appointed by Democratic presidents, while Judge Chutkan was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

Judge Chutkan had ruled against President Trump’s attorneys and argued that the gag order was not illegal because the former president is a criminal defendant. The gag order was issued at the request of special counsel Jack Smith's team of prosecutors, who claimed that the former president's criticism of witnesses, the judge, prosecutors, and Washington itself threatened the integrity of their case.

The Trump legal team had argued that the order denied him the right to free speech, especially while he is the leading GOP candidate for president.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chutkan; indictment; jacksmith; presdjtrump; trump; trumppersecution; trymp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

1 posted on 11/06/2023 9:52:07 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Could be?????


2 posted on 11/06/2023 9:54:31 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Trump has all the right enemies, DeSantis has all the wrong friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Beat me to it


3 posted on 11/06/2023 9:58:13 PM PST by Regulator (It's fraud, Jim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Smith’s budget needs to be zeroed out.


4 posted on 11/06/2023 10:03:41 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Followed by Smith’s prosecution for Abuse of Power (he was already admonished for that by no less then the Supreme Court in the Enron cases) and Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law with regard to the President of the United States, something that is breathtaking in its implications.


5 posted on 11/06/2023 10:09:28 PM PST by Regulator (It's fraud, Jim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Jack Smith as of right now is trying to prosecute the greatest political figure of our time on the world stage. Jack Smith couldn’t carry Trump’s jockstrap.


6 posted on 11/06/2023 10:50:41 PM PST by magua (It's not racism, it's just that thisBecause it’s being reported that a lot of this started in 2015.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Question a BLATANTLY FRAUDULENT election and what do you get? 20 years.


7 posted on 11/06/2023 11:04:19 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom (“Occupy your mind with good thoughts or your enemy will fill them with bad ones.” ~ Thomas More)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The gag order was issued at the request of special counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors, who claimed that the former president’s criticism of witnesses, the judge, prosecutors, and Washington itself threatened the integrity of their case.>>> Smith has admitted that he has such a flimsy case that the defendant can threaten the integrity of the case by criticizing the people prosecuting the case. I would file for complete dismissal based on this argument of the prosecution.


8 posted on 11/06/2023 11:30:28 PM PST by kvanbrunt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The Department of Justice is likely to lose at the Supreme Court for another reason. For the sake of due process and traditional cannons of statutory interpretation, the Court tends to disfavor expansive, non-obvious readings of statutes, especially when a criminal penalty is imposed. Otherwise, potential defendants have a hard time discerning in advance that their conduct is illegal. Lawyers and judges have a derisive term for when conduct is suddenly declared illegal by the government through clever, non-obvious statutory interpretation: “gotcha” justice.
9 posted on 11/07/2023 1:13:12 AM PST by Rockingham (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Democrat judges are like the German judges under Hitler. Yes, Mein Furher. Whatever you say mein furher.


10 posted on 11/07/2023 1:17:14 AM PST by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper (Figures )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
.....special counsel Jack Smith's team of prosecutors, who claimed that the former president's criticism of witnesses, the judge, prosecutors, and Washington itself threatened the integrity of their case.

This is nonsense, IMO. The 'persecution and its team' have no integrity. It's a political witch hunt where the persecution is allowed to put anything it wants out there to media and demands from a lickspittle, complicit judge that he gag the defense entirely. The defendant is innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law - this judge and persecution have already made up their minds and judgements before trial has even started on both sides.

11 posted on 11/07/2023 1:28:05 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

A thief steals your car, and when you report it and demand the police do something about it, they prosecute you for conspiring to deprive the thief of an income.


12 posted on 11/07/2023 1:34:07 AM PST by Lazamataz (The firearms I own today, are the firearms I will die with. How I die will be up to them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I’m wondering (not really) if there aren’t several states attorneys general have been conspiring with Smith et al regarding trying to keep Trump off the ballot for 2024.


13 posted on 11/07/2023 1:41:35 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Kinda obvious to me.


14 posted on 11/07/2023 1:41:59 AM PST by Lazamataz (The firearms I own today, are the firearms I will die with. How I die will be up to them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
And BTW


15 posted on 11/07/2023 1:45:14 AM PST by Lazamataz (The firearms I own today, are the firearms I will die with. How I die will be up to them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

“A thief steals your car,...”

...for a few seconds.

You spend the weekend detailing it meticulously.

Wild boars down in the holler seem unusually active.

Notice what — rather, who — is absent in this scenario.


16 posted on 11/07/2023 1:58:50 AM PST by HKMk23 (https://youtu.be/LTseTg48568)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

Your analogy escapes me entirely.


17 posted on 11/07/2023 2:02:11 AM PST by Lazamataz (The firearms I own today, are the firearms I will die with. How I die will be up to them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

OH I GET IT.

The car thief is dead.

No, my analogy is meant to demonstrate the absurdity of prosecuting Trump and supporters for objecting to having the 2020 election stolen.


18 posted on 11/07/2023 2:21:28 AM PST by Lazamataz (The firearms I own today, are the firearms I will die with. How I die will be up to them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
corruptly obstructing an official proceeding

You mean like stealing an election?

19 posted on 11/07/2023 2:27:05 AM PST by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The writer forgets: the process is the punishment.

Smith doesn't care if he gets the conviction, the process and muddying up Trump as much as possible is the goal.

That's why Trump's being attacked by multiple, corrupt District and State Attorneys.

They think they're keeping him so busy 'n distracted that his campaign will suffer and fail as a result.

Fools.

20 posted on 11/07/2023 2:29:50 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson