Special Prosecutor Jack Smith appeals directly to SCOTUS for "immediate" ruling on Trump's presidential immunity claim for elections case

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Special counsel Jack Smith asks Supreme Court to rule quickly on whether Trump can be prosecuted

APNEWS.COM

---

A federal judge ruled the case could go forward, but the Republican ex-president signaled he would ask the federal appeals court in Washington to reverse that outcome.

 

Quote

 

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to take up and rule quickly on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results.

 

A federal judge ruled the case could go forward, but Trump, 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner, signaled he would ask the federal appeals court in Washington to reverse that outcome.

 

Smith is attempting to bypass the appeals court. The request filed Monday for the Supreme Court to take up the matter directly reflects Smith’s desire to keep the trial, currently set for March 4, on track and to prevent any delays that could push back the case until after next year’s presidential election.

 

“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” prosecutors wrote.

 

The earliest the court would consider the appeal would be Jan. 5, 2024, the date of the justices’ next scheduled private conference.

 

Underscoring the urgency for prosecutors in securing a quick resolution that can push the case forward, they wrote: “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”

 

 

[Uaarkson]

Aaaand we all know how this is gonna go.

[Jason]

19 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

Aaaand we all know how this is gonna go.

 

I really don't know what to expect, his SCOTUS picks have not bent over backward for him the way Cannon has. I could just as easily see this being 7-2 against Trump (Thomas and Alito being the 2) as I could see it being a partisan 6-3 (or maybe 5-4 with Roberts defecting) decision in Trump's favor. 

[Mr.Vic20]

Time to see if the power brokers still think Trump is a plow they can get behind or if they have decided to move on. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

I really don't know what to expect, his SCOTUS picks have not bent over backward for him the way Cannon has. 

 

This was posted on ResetERA and I really do believe it's a quite well-informed assessment:

 

Quote

1) Whether they take the case at all, over the DC Circuit. I'd guess that would be a yes and probably unanimous, or at least without recorded dissent.
2) Whether they agree to expedite. I'd say probably yes, but more narrowly, maybe 5-4.
3) How they decide on the merits. Probably decide no immunity, maybe 7-2.

 

[Jason]

Just now, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

This was posted on ResetERA and I really do believe it's quite reasonable:

 

 

 

Yeah like I edited in I can see 7-2 against Trump, and I can also see 6-3 or 5-4 in Trump's favor. @Mr.Vic20 is also right that the wildcard is probably what the billionaires who've captured the Republican justices want to see happen. 

[marioandsonic]

5-4 in Trump's favor, calling it now

[Firewithin]

never expect good to happen

[skillzdadirecta]

32 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

Time to see if the power brokers still think Trump is a plow they can get behind or if they have decided to move on. 

Some have... the Koch brothers are backing Hailey after seeing DeSantis flame out. They money guys see Trump as too much of a wildcard that THEY can't even control.

[Mr.Vic20]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

Some have... the Koch brothers are backing Hailey after seeing DeSantis flame out.

This is my hope! 

[mclumber1]

The implications of a president having immunity even after they leave office is just insane.  I would hope that the conservatives on the court who are nominally Trump-centric understand that, and if they rule in favor of Trump, it means that Biden (or other Democrats) would also be shielded for life from any sort of prosecution. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

The implications of a president having immunity even after they leave office is just insane.

 

It absolutely would mean in plain text that the President of the United States of America might as well be a term-limited monarch.

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

The implications of a president having immunity even after they leave office is just insane.  I would hope that the conservatives on the court who are nominally Trump-centric understand that, and if they rule in favor of Trump, it means that Biden (or other Democrats) would also be shielded for life from any sort of prosecution. 

 

If they rule in favor of Trump it would definitely be that only Republican presidents are immune for life. 

[marioandsonic]

So how soon can we expect a ruling on this?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

10 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

So how soon can we expect a ruling on this?

 

Quote

The court is next scheduled to meet privately on Jan. 5, 2024. It’s unclear whether the justices would convene sooner to take up Smith’s request.

 

[Jason]

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

A tweet was posted in the ResetERA thread that stated that there was no way that Smith would've done this without near-complete assurance that SCOTUS would grant cert.

 

Quote

You only take this move if you believe the Supreme Court would grant cert no matter what the DC Circuit decides below— and no matter how quickly the appellate court would have resolved it.

 

[marioandsonic]

Imagine if the SCOTUS made an announcement on January 6th

[Kal-El814]

4 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

Imagine if the SCOTUS made an announcement on January 6th

 

[CitizenVectron]

I believe SCOTUS will rule that Trump can be prosecuted criminally. Not because it is the right thing to do, but because it's the most evil thing to do. A classic trope to show that someone is really evil is to have them betray another evil person when that person's usefulness has run out. That's how you know who is evil and stupid, and who is evil and cunning. SCOTUS have their jobs for life, so if they no longer find Trump useful, then turning on him is the logical thing to do.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The DC Court of Appeals has also granted a similar ruling regarding the motion to expedite as SCOTUS.

 

[Xbob42]

I didn't know you could just, like, appeal to the Supreme Court!

[SuperSpreader]

2 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

I believe SCOTUS will rule that Trump can be prosecuted criminally. Not because it is the right thing to do, but because it's the most evil thing to do. A classic trope to show that someone is really evil is to have them betray another evil person when that person's usefulness has run out. That's how you know who is evil and stupid, and who is evil and cunning. SCOTUS have their jobs for life, so if they no longer find Trump useful, then turning on him is the logical thing to do.

 

I think SCOTUS would rule against Trump to preserve their power as an institution independent of the presidency. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

I didn't know you could just, like, appeal to the Supreme Court!

 

You certainly can - it's just that the chances of them paying the least bit of attention are quite...slim.

[LazyPiranha]

There are also a small handful of matters that HAVE to go to the Supreme Court, but there are very few filed and even fewer heard, probably less than one a year on average.

[outsida]

2 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

I didn't know you could just, like, appeal to the Supreme Court!

“You” can’t. 

[Kal-El814]

18 minutes ago, outsida said:

“You” can’t. 

Not with that attitude. 

[MarSolo]

Since we’re in this thread, this seems BIG:

Special counsel reveals plans to use Trump’s phone data at trial - POLITICO

WWW.POLITICO.COM

---

Jack Smith indicated that he plans to call an expert witness who extracted and reviewed data copied from Trump’s phone.

 

Quote

The data from Trump’s phone could reveal day-to-day details of his final weeks in office, including his daily movements, his Twitter habits and any other aides who had access to his accounts and devices. The data, for example, could help show whether Trump personally approved or sent a fateful tweet attacking his vice president, Mike Pence, during the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

Quote

The filing is the latest glimpse into the extraordinary evidence Smith has amassed in his probe, including testimony from dozens of Trump’s closest aides and advisers, including former Vice President Mike Pence.

 

[Reputator]

15 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

I believe SCOTUS will rule that Trump can be prosecuted criminally. Not because it is the right thing to do, but because it's the most evil thing to do. A classic trope to show that someone is really evil is to have them betray another evil person when that person's usefulness has run out. That's how you know who is evil and stupid, and who is evil and cunning. SCOTUS have their jobs for life, so if they no longer find Trump useful, then turning on him is the logical thing to do.

 

You're right, I do think I've seen this scene several times before in shows and movies. And since we're living in a real-life farce, it seems more than probable. 

[brucoe]

15 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

I didn't know you could just, like, appeal to the Supreme Court!

I appeal to them almost daily. It's usually in response to the drink choices in the cafeteria, but so far it hasn't amounted to any changes.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

Lawfare’s analysis of Smith’s brief makes some interesting points.

 

He seems to be hinting that Trump’s actions after losing the election are even worse than we think.  So bad that even a stacked court can’t cook up a reasonable excuse for them.

 

Which is kinda scary, given what we already know.

 

 

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Lawfare’s analysis of Smith’s brief makes some interesting points.

 

He seems to be hinting that Trump’s actions after losing the election are even worse than we think.  So bad that even a stacked court can’t cook up a reasonable excuse for them.

 

Which is kinda scary, given what we already know.

 

 

 

Yeah let's get this guy in there! 

[osxmatt]

I don’t think SCOTUS will do Trump any favors. They already got their seats. They don’t need him anymore. I also think a lot of establishment Republicans are realizing (or long ago realized) that things in the 90s and 00s were pretty good for them. They mostly got the legislative outcomes they wanted and were able to make incredible amounts of money at the same time.

 

Yes, most Republican voters were left behind and found themselves feeling disenfranchised which lead to a leader like Trump, but most Republicans in Congress, the administrative state, and the judiciary are insulated from any type of blowback for that.

[Nokra]

40 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

I don’t think SCOTUS will do Trump any favors. They already got their seats. They don’t need him anymore. I also think a lot of establishment Republicans are realizing (or long ago realized) that things in the 90s and 00s were pretty good for them. They mostly got the legislative outcomes they wanted and were able to make incredible amounts of money at the same time.

 

Yes, most Republican voters were left behind and found themselves feeling disenfranchised which lead to a leader like Trump, but most Republicans in Congress, the administrative state, and the judiciary are insulated from any type of blowback for that.

While all true, I do wonder if the cat can be put back in the bag... In my admittedly uninformed perspective, it seems like the Republican party of the past may be lost forever as the populist movement has taken root. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, Nokra said:

While all true, I do wonder if the cat can be put back in the bag... In my admittedly uninformed perspective, it seems like the Republican party of the past may be lost forever as the populist movement has taken root. 

 

This is absolutely correct.

 

The old "conservative but not populist" GOP is dead and buried.