Jack Smith has lost at least half of his case against Donald Trump. It remains to be seen what he will be able to do, if anything, with the remaining half.
Thank you, thank you for this! You have dissected the mess and expertly explained how it all fits together, along with the ramifications. You have answered most of my questions. I remain in awe of your fabulous legal mind, Peter. I wish you could be serving on our Supreme Court!
Because there was a legal precedent with the Hayes situation, I have wondered how this persecution managed to get this far along. Didn’t any lower court immediately see the precedent? Sure, dirty politics, but why didn’t anyone stop it with the simple fact of a previous ruling?
Also, what exactly is this ‘outer perimeter’ referenced in today’s ruling?
Finally, Peter, do you see anything in this ruling that will enable Trump - as candidate or newly elected President - to prosecute Jack Smith in retaliation? With this ruling, can the case now be made that Smith violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, or broke some particular law in his relentless political persecution?
The election of 1876 is a political precedent, not a legal one. There was no court case brought to bear in that election.
As for the precise outer perimeter of Trump's official duties and thus immunity....Roberts kicked THAT question back to the DC District Court for a rehearing.
Which almost reads as a judicial "F*** You" from Roberts to Smith for even pursuing this nonsense. The Court has to wade through the indictment, parse each act, and then Smith's persecution team and Trump's defense team have to argue official vs unofficial.
The rehearing on the motion to dismiss is NOT going to be heard on an expedited basis. The court has to parse each act and each paragraph of the indictment, sustaining or dismissing as deemed appropriate, and then Smith has to figure out what to do with whatever shreds of the case he has left.
Trump still has to go through the circus, so it's not a complete win for Trump, but it's now a legal mess for Jack Smith.
No, Jack Smith cannot be prosecuted just for bringing the indictment. If Smith tampered with evidence or suborned perjury to secure the indictment or tr the case he can be prosecuted for that, but we're a long way from having a plausible case against Jack Smith.
Thank you, thank you for this! You have dissected the mess and expertly explained how it all fits together, along with the ramifications. You have answered most of my questions. I remain in awe of your fabulous legal mind, Peter. I wish you could be serving on our Supreme Court!
Because there was a legal precedent with the Hayes situation, I have wondered how this persecution managed to get this far along. Didn’t any lower court immediately see the precedent? Sure, dirty politics, but why didn’t anyone stop it with the simple fact of a previous ruling?
Also, what exactly is this ‘outer perimeter’ referenced in today’s ruling?
Finally, Peter, do you see anything in this ruling that will enable Trump - as candidate or newly elected President - to prosecute Jack Smith in retaliation? With this ruling, can the case now be made that Smith violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, or broke some particular law in his relentless political persecution?
Thanks again, Magnificent Man!
The election of 1876 is a political precedent, not a legal one. There was no court case brought to bear in that election.
As for the precise outer perimeter of Trump's official duties and thus immunity....Roberts kicked THAT question back to the DC District Court for a rehearing.
Which almost reads as a judicial "F*** You" from Roberts to Smith for even pursuing this nonsense. The Court has to wade through the indictment, parse each act, and then Smith's persecution team and Trump's defense team have to argue official vs unofficial.
The rehearing on the motion to dismiss is NOT going to be heard on an expedited basis. The court has to parse each act and each paragraph of the indictment, sustaining or dismissing as deemed appropriate, and then Smith has to figure out what to do with whatever shreds of the case he has left.
Trump still has to go through the circus, so it's not a complete win for Trump, but it's now a legal mess for Jack Smith.
No, Jack Smith cannot be prosecuted just for bringing the indictment. If Smith tampered with evidence or suborned perjury to secure the indictment or tr the case he can be prosecuted for that, but we're a long way from having a plausible case against Jack Smith.