The disappointment continues to mount for prosecutors hell-bent on their mission to “Get Trump.” For instance, earlier this month, Judge Chutkan of the D.C. District Court gave both the prosecution and the defense another few weeks to mull over how the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. United States might affect Jack Smith’s election interference case against President Trump, charging the former president with four felonies.
In her order, Judge Chutkan asked both the prosecutor Jack Smith and the defense to provide a detailed plan for how they intend to pursue the robust “fact-finding mission” now required under the Supreme Court’s decision under Trump by Aug. 30, according to The New York Times. Jack Smith originally had requested the extension to “assess the new precedent,” the outlet reported.
The “new precedent” bemoaned by Smith is a good one — and a necessary one. In its landmark Trump decision on July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the former president has “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution” for “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” reiterating that presidents must enjoy a “presumption of immunity” when engaging in “official acts.”
Washington, D.C.: Prosecution by Biden DOJ for Jan. 6 Speech
This is the case, brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, out of which the Supreme Court’s decision arose.
In its opinion, the majority effectively shrunk the universe of possible acts for which Trump could be prosecuted, determining, for instance, that President Trump’s alleged efforts to “leverage the Justice Department’s
