March 4, 2024

[berg80]

Apparently, some of you need to be reminded why Smith's new filing was necessary and why it became a story so close to the election. Chutkan had originally scheduled the trial to begin on March 4.

On Friday, Chutkan formally called off Trump’s original March 4 trial date and indicated she would reset it “if and when” higher courts resolve the immunity issue and allow her to proceed with a trial. She said at the time that her schedule in mid-April and beyond remained in flux because of uncertainty surrounding the case.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/05/chutkan-trump-trial-date-2024-00139665

That date had to be postponed while we waited for trump's Court's ludicrous, vague, immunity ruling. A ruling that itself was delayed unnecessarily by the Court dragging its feet for months.

MAGA justices already gave Trump de facto immunity — and disgraced the court​

All Trump ever wanted was a delay.

Another day of Supreme Court decisions passed on Friday, another day without an opinion on presidential immunity. No better evidence of the bad faith and bias on the part of the right-wing Supreme Court majority exists than its foot-dragging on the decision concerning whether felon and former president Donald Trump can be prosecuted for an insurrection. In deciding to delay the case for more than six months, the court itself commits election interference.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/06/24/trump-immunity-supreme-court/

Smith's new filing specifically addresses the original indictment in terms of what can still be charged in light of trump's Court's attempt to protect him. Making the case that the various actions he took do not reasonably fall under those official activities the Court has given immunity to. A filing that would not have been necessary if not for the Court's conservatives intervening on trump's behalf.

 

[Mac1958]

Yep, his lawyers only cared about delaying the trial, so that's what they did.

Since he's so innocent, he should have just stood trial. Be careful what you ask for.

 

[berg80]

Yep, his lawyers only cared about delaying the trial, so that's what they did.

His lawyers, and the complicit justices on his Court.

 

[berg80]

Speaking of Smith's new filing, here's an excellent summary of it and why it was necessary.

Jack Smith Makes His Case

In a new filing, the special counsel sets out the most detailed evidence yet against Donald Trump in the prosecution of the former president.

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[berg80]

Here is the minefield the conservatives have created for Smith to navigate.

The Supreme Court’s ruling divided presidential conduct into three ambiguously-defined categories: conduct at the core of the president’s constitutional responsibilities, for which he is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution; a broader, fuzzy category of conduct within the “outer perimeter” of presidential duties, for which the president enjoys a rebuttable presumption of immunity that may be overcome if prosecutors can show that “applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch’”; and a final category of unofficial conduct for which the president is not immune at all. In a particularly puzzling flourish, the Court also held that prosecutors cannot introduce evidence of immune conduct even to prosecute conduct that is not immune—creating additional hoops for Smith to jump through in prosecuting the case.

Smith’s job in this brief, therefore, is to argue that the relevant conduct is either unofficial or, if it isn’t, that the presumption of immunity should be rebutted. The problem for him is that the Supreme Court provided very little guidance on how to distinguish between these three categories and how, exactly, to rebut that presumption.

 

[Lesh]

So the timing of this new filing was created by Trump’s delays?

Oh

 

[berg80]

So the timing of this new filing was created by Trump’s delays?

Oh

trump and his Court's, yes.

I should warn any of the board's conservatives who are thinking about reading the article (as if), there are no conspiracy theories in it so you may find it boring.