Trump, Smith, and boxes of Mar-a-Lago evidence
Special Counsel Jack Smith has issued a new indictment against former President Donald Trump in the Jan. 6 election-interference case. In a joint reporting effort with The New York Times, Yahoo! Politics Editor David Knowles reports under the headline "Special counsel files new superseding indictment against Trump in response to Supreme Court immunity ruling." Knowles writes:
Special counsel Jack Smith filed a new indictment Tuesday in the Jan. 6 election interference case against former President Donald Trump that tailored the details of the allegations in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts.
In an effort to comply with the high court’s June ruling, Smith presented a second Washington grand jury with the same four charges in Tuesday’s indictment that he charged Trump with last August.
Trump is charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges.
Knowles addresses several questions that Smith's new filing raises:
What’s changed?
A section from the original indictment that is absent from the new one accused Trump of pressuring the Justice Department to allow states to withhold their electors in the 2020 election. That effort set up a confrontation between Trump and then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and other administration officials who threatened to resign should Trump require them to move ahead with that plan.
Delay explained
Earlier this month, Smith’s team submitted a legal filing with Judge Tanya Chutkan saying that the government was requesting “additional time to provide the Court with an informed proposal regarding the schedule for pretrial proceedings moving forward."
Given that Smith was in the process of obtaining a new superseding indictment from a grand jury, the reasons for that requested delay have now become apparent.
Trump's response
Shortly after the new indictment was announced, Trump lashed out at Smith.
"In an effort to resurrect a 'dead' Witch Hunt in Washington, D.C., in an act of desperation, and in order to save face, the illegally appointed 'Special Counsel' Deranged Jack Smith, has brought a ridiculous new Indictment against me, which has all the problems of the old Indictment, and should be dismissed IMMEDIATELY," he wrote in a post on Truth Social.
As you probably have guessed by now, Trump was not about to let it go without hurling more invective in Smith's direction, as summarized under a separate Yahoo! post, with the title "Trump Erupts Over reindictment On Coup Attempt Charges."
Trump said it was “shocking” that he had been reindicted “immediately after our Supreme Court Victory on Immunity and more.”
“I’ve also been informed by my attorneys, that you’re not even allowed to bring cases literally right before an Election – A direct assault on Democracy!” he wrote, adding, “This is an unprecedented abuse of the Criminal Justice System.”
Trump also claimed, without evidence, that Vice President Kamala Harris is “actively pushing” the reindictment
“Smith rewrote the exact same case in an effort to circumvent the Supreme Court Decision. The people of our Country will see what is happening with all of these corrupt lawsuits against me, and will REJECT them by giving me an overwhelming Victory on November 5th for President of the United States,” he predicted.
Relatively objective observers took a more favorable view of Smith's filings. One such person was former Trump lawyer Ty Cobb. A piece from Raw Story, under the headline "
A former lawyer for Donald Trump would be "scratching his head" if the MAGA leader's current lawyers were surprised by Jack Smith's trimmed-down superseding indictment Tuesday against the former president.
Ty Cobb spoke with Erin Burnett on CNN's OutFront on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the case, telling the anchor he believes the slimmed-down case makes it clear that Trump's acts were personal, rather than official acts.
"This is a very forceful document," he said. "It's pared down. Every sentence is crisply worded. It's a tight narrative. You can't read this and not understand the crimes that Trump actually committed."
"I think it does," said Cobb, noting that some of Smith's editing was "spot on" that emphasized the "private nature of many of these acts."
He pointed to the private funding of a speech before the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, as well as Mike Pence's "ceremonial role" in certifying the election and the non-governmental roles of the co-conspirators who were also acting in a "private capacity."
"I think this threads the needle. If I'm Trump's lawyers and I'm surprised I'm scratching my head at that because this was the reasonable approach to take," he said.
Cobb said it made more sense to put forth a "forceful case like this" rather than go through a slew of hearings before Judge Tanya Chutkin and have her edit the indictment.
When asked if the case would proceed quickly or slowly, Cobb said it would likely proceed slowly. Chutkin will still have a hearing on the whittled-down indictment, he noted.
While parts of the case have gone in Trump's favor, Cobb says he still faces significant legal jeopardy:
To boot, Cobb believes an appeal is still available, though the Supreme Court may not take it.
"This hasn't been on course to go before the election for months," he said. "That always was never going to happen."
Cobb said that while the 78-year-old Trump won't likely receive a 55-year sentence, he could see six to nine "once convicted."
That raises this question: If Trump wins the election on Nov. 5, 2024, and is later convicted in the election-interference case, could we have a TWICE convicted felon leading our country -- and perhaps trying to do it from inside a prison cell -- under a sentence that could cover his first term and a second term, if Americans are stupid enough to re-elect a federal inmate. Numerous news outlets have reported under the assumption that Trump can close any criminal case against him once in office. My research indicates that is a tricky legal issue, and Trump might find it is not as easy to pull off as many observers seem to assume. We will examine this issue more closely in upcoming posts. This much seems certain: Having a president trying to operate his office from behind prison bars would make the United States the laughing stock of the world. And we would have no one but ourselves to blame. Here is a final thought from Ty Cobb:
Even so, Cobb doubted that Trump would take the case seriously until the "final gavel" came down.
You can watch video of the Cobb-Burnett interview at this link.
No comments:
Post a Comment