10/22/2024
Jack Sprat could not eat any fat. His wife could not eat any lean. However, they only licked the platter clean.
Jack Smith was down to his last chance to make an impact on the election.
He played his final card against Donald Trump.
But Jack Smith crossed a line that could end with prison stripes as this scary move backfires on him.
Obama Judge releases portions of Jack Smith’s evidence against Trump to the public
Special Counsel Jack Smith hoped that he was going to tie down former President Donald Trump during the height of the election with a trial for the January 6 case.
A protracted legal battle over Presidential immunity paused the case for most of this year.
The Supreme Court ruled in July that Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts committed while in office.
It was left for lower courts to determine what’s considered an official act by a President.
D.C. District Court Judge Tonya Chutkan – who was appointed by former President Barack Obama – resumed the January 6 case in August.
Smith filed a superseding indictment that kept the original four charges against Trump but removed evidence the Supreme Court ruled was covered by Presidential immunity.
A trial in the January 6 case won’t happen until after the election if it ever happens at all.
Trump winning would allow his Justice Department to fire Smith and drop the case.
Smith can’t get his trial before the election so he’s playing the last card he has left.
He filed a 165-page brief with the court that outlined the evidence he has against Trump.
Trump’s legal team and Smith’s office now have to duke it out over what’s considered an official act and covered by Presidential immunity.
Smith and Obama’s Judge’s scheme to hurt Trump politically
The Special Counsel can’t get a trial before the election but he’s trying to release his evidence to the public to deal the maximum amount of political damage before the election.
Trump’s legal team can’t contest the validity of the evidence because this portion of the legal proceedings is strictly whether evidence is covered by Presidential immunity.
Chutkan has ruled in Smith’s every step of the way in the case.
She rejected a request by Trump’s legal team to keep some of the sealed evidence from being made public.
Trump’s legal team argued that making the evidence public now was election interference.
“There is undoubtedly a public interest in courts not inserting themselves into elections, or appearing to do so,” Chuktan wrote in a ruling. “But litigation’s incidental effects on politics are not the same as a court’s intentional interference with them.”
Chutkan laughably claimed that holding back the evidence from the public would be its own form of election interference.
“If the court withheld information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely because of the potential political consequences of releasing it, that withholding could itself constitute—or appear to be—election interference,” Chutkan stated.
More evidence from Smith’s January 6 case is public in the closing weeks of the election.
It remains to be seen if voters outside of hardcore Democrats still care about January 6.
Judge Chutkan and Jack Smith are trying to get as much damaging evidence as they can into the public.
Harvard Law professor slams Jack Smith in a devastating New York Times op-ed
But now, a Harvard Law professor just leveled a damning charge against Jack Smith in the New York Times
Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith is a Never Trumper but that doesn’t mean he is willing to let Jack Smith twist the law for Kamala Harris’ political ambitions.
In a New York Times op-ed, Goldsmith argued that prosecutors’ cases are supposed to be “conducted fairly and apolitically.”
That’s a foundational principle of the American Justice System, or it used to be until, as Goldsmith puts it, Smith damaged “public confidence” in the system.
Goldsmith insisted that by putting out the 165-page brief, Smith “failed” to take, “scrupulous care to assure the public that the prosecutions are conducted in compliance with pertinent rules.”
Goldsmith believes Smith violated the Justice Department’s “60-day rule,” which is supposed to bar Justice Department officials from prosecutorial actions on cases that may affect the outcome of an election within 60 days of that election.
Smith’s brief went public 30 days before the election.
Goldsmith suggested Smith made the briefing public to influence the outcome of the election.
“It is hard to understand any reason to go forward this close to the election other than to influence it—a motive that would clearly violate department policy,” Goldsmith stated. “It is imperative that the department explain in detail why this inference is false and why its actions comported with past department practices and understandings.”
Stay tuned to Unmuzzled News for any updates to this ongoing story
kommonsentsjane
kommonsentsjane 