>Special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case against Donald Trump took a major step last week when Smith submitted a court filing that argues the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision should not prevent the former president from facing prosecution in the case. It’s Smith’s first formal argument over presidential immunity since the high court’s bombshell opinion. Meanwhile, Trump’s attorneys hoped to erase his $450 million civil fraud judgment out of New York, arguing the case in front of an appeals court.
>**Jack Smith Tests Trump’s Presidential Immunity**
>Smith’s court filing is one of the first documented efforts across Trump’s criminal cases to formally argue over presidential immunity since the Supreme Court’s historic decision in July ruled that former presidents are protected by presidential immunity for certain “official” acts taken while in office. In the special counsel’s Jan. 6 case, that means Trump’s discussions with his Justice Department are off-limits and cannot be used to charge Trump or be used as evidence. **However, the high court carved out a second category of presidential acts that hold “presumptive immunity,” which lower courts have to determine and where Smith’s latest court filing comes in**.
>It was filed under seal—that means it’s not viewable by the public—since it includes materials the government considers sensitive; grand jury testimony, materials seized through search warrants, transcripts, and witness interviews. All of the evidence supports Smith’s superseding indictment, **a new indictment filed in light of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision where he raises the exact same four charges against Trump but removes any mention of Trump’s efforts to use the Department of Justice to overturn the election**.
>Prosecutors also prepared a redacted version of the document that excludes individuals’ names but keeps direct quotes and summaries of sensitive materials. There are also some redactions to publicly available information, like Trump’s old tweets, since some of them identify people who could serve as potential witnesses for the government and could face threats or harassment that would affect their trial testimony.
>**Smith asked Judge Tanya Chutkan to consider allowing the public to see the redacted version of this court filing**, but first Trump’s attorneys get to respond. **Chutkan has given the defense until noon on Tuesday to dispute Smith’s proposal and until Oct. 10 to dispute proposed redactions to documentary exhibits**, all which will also be filed under seal…
BukkitCrab on
American voters deserve to know who they’re voting for, and when it comes to Trump, he’s a criminal.
silverbeat33 on
Go. Jack, Go! Fighting the good fight man.
MadAstrid on
I accept.
Rhoeri on
But I thought Trump was innocent and had nothing to hide. Right? Riiiight?
Kennydoe on
I’m here for it.
acendri-solutions on
What’s funny here is that last year Jack argued to file everything under seal so that Trump couldn’t leak the names of witnesses and intimidate them. Trump argued for non-redacted filing for the sake of transparency and the judge settled in the middle with sharing most things with the public but reacting the sensitive names and testimony that could get someone hurt.
Fast forward to this week. Jack is still filing things according to the court’s ruling. Trump is now arguing to only allow filing under seal but the judge said “nah dog. i already ruled in your favor to keep it public like 8 months ago.”
WV-GT on
Jack Smith is trying to show his evidence, meanwhile Trump is still saying that there is mountains of mystery evidence about election fraud.
Would love for Trump to be forced to show his.supposed evidence
Nice-Personality5496 on
He’s not.
He’s filing a legal brief ordered by the Supreme Court radical right wing justices.
Available_Reason7795 on
Please arrest Trump now before November!
robot_jeans on
I’m sure the Supreme Court will block it unfortunately. Him releasing it is the only way to preserve it, if Trump wins 100% any evidence that the DOJ has against him will be destroyed.
billsil on
Do or do not. There is no try.
Just issue a press release like Comey did.
Kinnins0n on
The Supreme Court is about to rule Jack Smith as illegal.
13 Comments
>Special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case against Donald Trump took a major step last week when Smith submitted a court filing that argues the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision should not prevent the former president from facing prosecution in the case. It’s Smith’s first formal argument over presidential immunity since the high court’s bombshell opinion. Meanwhile, Trump’s attorneys hoped to erase his $450 million civil fraud judgment out of New York, arguing the case in front of an appeals court.
>**Jack Smith Tests Trump’s Presidential Immunity**
>Smith’s court filing is one of the first documented efforts across Trump’s criminal cases to formally argue over presidential immunity since the Supreme Court’s historic decision in July ruled that former presidents are protected by presidential immunity for certain “official” acts taken while in office. In the special counsel’s Jan. 6 case, that means Trump’s discussions with his Justice Department are off-limits and cannot be used to charge Trump or be used as evidence. **However, the high court carved out a second category of presidential acts that hold “presumptive immunity,” which lower courts have to determine and where Smith’s latest court filing comes in**.
>It was filed under seal—that means it’s not viewable by the public—since it includes materials the government considers sensitive; grand jury testimony, materials seized through search warrants, transcripts, and witness interviews. All of the evidence supports Smith’s superseding indictment, **a new indictment filed in light of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision where he raises the exact same four charges against Trump but removes any mention of Trump’s efforts to use the Department of Justice to overturn the election**.
>Prosecutors also prepared a redacted version of the document that excludes individuals’ names but keeps direct quotes and summaries of sensitive materials. There are also some redactions to publicly available information, like Trump’s old tweets, since some of them identify people who could serve as potential witnesses for the government and could face threats or harassment that would affect their trial testimony.
>**Smith asked Judge Tanya Chutkan to consider allowing the public to see the redacted version of this court filing**, but first Trump’s attorneys get to respond. **Chutkan has given the defense until noon on Tuesday to dispute Smith’s proposal and until Oct. 10 to dispute proposed redactions to documentary exhibits**, all which will also be filed under seal…
American voters deserve to know who they’re voting for, and when it comes to Trump, he’s a criminal.
Go. Jack, Go! Fighting the good fight man.
I accept.
But I thought Trump was innocent and had nothing to hide. Right? Riiiight?
I’m here for it.
What’s funny here is that last year Jack argued to file everything under seal so that Trump couldn’t leak the names of witnesses and intimidate them. Trump argued for non-redacted filing for the sake of transparency and the judge settled in the middle with sharing most things with the public but reacting the sensitive names and testimony that could get someone hurt.
Fast forward to this week. Jack is still filing things according to the court’s ruling. Trump is now arguing to only allow filing under seal but the judge said “nah dog. i already ruled in your favor to keep it public like 8 months ago.”
Jack Smith is trying to show his evidence, meanwhile Trump is still saying that there is mountains of mystery evidence about election fraud.
Would love for Trump to be forced to show his.supposed evidence
He’s not.
He’s filing a legal brief ordered by the Supreme Court radical right wing justices.
Please arrest Trump now before November!
I’m sure the Supreme Court will block it unfortunately. Him releasing it is the only way to preserve it, if Trump wins 100% any evidence that the DOJ has against him will be destroyed.
Do or do not. There is no try.
Just issue a press release like Comey did.
The Supreme Court is about to rule Jack Smith as illegal.