"the Attorney General PURPORTED to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States"

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion with the sole purpose of explaining why Jack Smith's appointment is unlawful. pic.twitter.com/nExfub2A4a

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) July 1, 2024

SCOTUS orders Judge Chutkan to determine whether Trump's attempts to pressure VP Pence to reject or send back electoral slates in contested states is covered under the president's executive power: pic.twitter.com/lVOmZGqOVL

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) July 1, 2024

So does this mean they punted?

JFABNRGR said:

---

So does this mean they punted?

---

Not exactly. But Chutkan and Smith are on a very very tight leash in how they can proceed with the Jan 6th case.

If one goes back and reads that overblown indictment, there are official acts all through it.

And here's where it gets very tricky for Smith, immunized acts are not going to be admissible so allegations as to the motives for Trump to have taken such action cannot be used to get around that presumption of immunity.

aggiehawg said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

So does this mean they punted?

---

Not exactly. But Chutkan and Smith are on a very very tight leash in how they can proceed with the Jan 6th case.

If one goes back and reads that overblown indictment, there are official acts all through it.

And here's where it gets very tricky for Smith, immunized acts are not going to be admissible so allegations as to the motives for Trump to have taken such action cannot be used to get around that presumption of immunity.

---

I just read the other thread which you repeat here and I understand that but in a broader sense my question is could have the SC shut this case down or are they basically forcing jack smith & the doj to do this by the high standards set above?

I am not even sure shutting it down completely and or slapping jack smith was an option in their rulings, given the case presented before them so my question might be moot.

Quote:

---

I just read the other thread which you repeat here and I understand that but in a broader sense my question is could have the SC shut this case down or are they basically forcing jack smith & the doj to do this by the high standards set above?

---

The way this case was presented to them it would difficult for the Court to have shut Smith down completely just because of procedural rules and what they were asked to address.

But make no mistake, Smith will be scrambling as a result of this decision today. Does he have a path forward? Maybe tightens up the existing case considerably and bring a superceding indictment? Even if he did that, there's no trial before the election.

And this decision also affects the GA case or what's left of it anyway.

My biggest "I TOLD YOU SO" --

I think I've been about the only voice of legal analysis on the right -- so far as I'm aware -- who has repeatedly called out the use by the lower courts of the normal "standard of review" on a motion to dismiss that the "Facts of the Indictment are…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 1, 2024

Entire tweet:

Quote:

---

My biggest "I TOLD YOU SO" --

I think I've been about the only voice of legal analysis on the right -- so far as I'm aware -- who has repeatedly called out the use by the lower courts of the normal "standard of review" on a motion to dismiss that the "Facts of the Indictment are constructed to be true for purposes of the motion."

I have said from the start that that standard does not work for this immunity claim -- in order to determine if immunity applies, the Judge needs to look at the evidence behind the allegations, and not just accept what the prosecutor has written in the indictment. That requires an evidentiary hearing where both sides are heard.

That was NEVER done and that is a key to the Court's decision to send the case back -- with some specific instructions on how that is to take place, many of which favor Trump's position.

---

BREAKING WaPo:

Justice Department officials plan to pursue the criminal cases against Donald Trump past Election Day even if he wins, under the belief that department rules against charging or prosecuting a sitting president would not kick in until Inauguration Day in January,…

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) July 2, 2024

will25u said:

---

BREAKING WaPo:

Justice Department officials plan to pursue the criminal cases against Donald Trump past Election Day even if he wins, under the belief that department rules against charging or prosecuting a sitting president would not kick in until Inauguration Day in January,…

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) July 2, 2024

---

There is a WTF does that even mean meme I saw. No wait; just wake me when Terrance Howard starts dabbling into legal theory.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

will25u said:

---

BREAKING WaPo:

Justice Department officials plan to pursue the criminal cases against Donald Trump past Election Day even if he wins, under the belief that department rules against charging or prosecuting a sitting president would not kick in until Inauguration Day in January,…

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) July 2, 2024

---

There is a WTF does that even mean meme I saw. No wait; just wake me when Terrance Howard starts dabbling into legal theory.

---

If Trump wins, all those in the DOJ will be told to pound sand!

All in the same cage with no cameras.

Not sure it will really make any difference if they do continue trying to prosecute Trump after he wins the election.

Bot of Smith's federal cases in DC and in Florida are on life support with even more appealable issues to come. Then Trump gets inaugurated and the SC money is gone. No money, no staff.

Even Mercham is signalling he may not sentence Trump for anything in light of the immunity and unanimity of verdict SCOTUS decisions. Thomas' concurring opinion was a road map for Judge Cannon in Florida to toss out that case. And there are other reasons besides the question of whether Smith's appointment is legal.

Remember when Giuliani was sanctioned for not producing discovery on time? Yeah well Smith has not been forthcoming with discovery in the documents case, even conceding they have yet to go through everything. That means that both potential Brady and Giglio material has not been turned over as required.

Here we go again

NEW — Trump federal Jan. 6 case is now back in Judge Chutkan’s jurisdiction, per remand order from the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court pic.twitter.com/iweOLh81fy

— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) August 2, 2024

Huge win for the rule of law.

Proud to have filed briefs in support of President Trump. https://t.co/ZTftJNjPMh

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) August 2, 2024

As expected, Judge Chutkan wastes no time in restarting the proceedings in Jack Smith’s J6 case against Donald Trump.

She filed this order this morning.

Status hearing set for August 16 with status report due this week.

Here we go again… pic.twitter.com/ok2LqsqvgM

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 3, 2024

And so...what happens next? Who benefitted from this ruling?

whatthehey78 said:

---

And so...what happens next? Who benefitted from this ruling?

---

Chutkan will try to hurry this along as fast as possible. There actually should be an evidentiary hearing on the official acts question but unclear if she will hold one.

Is 'moving it along fast' a benefit? To whom? I suppose it depends on the outcome??

Of all the Trump cases, this is the one I'm interested in hearing what comes out in trial

whatthehey78 said:

---

Is 'moving it along fast' a benefit? To whom? I suppose it depends on the outcome??

---

Jack Smith's and Judge Chutkan's sole goal here is to tie Trump up in court and keep him off of the campaign trail right now. To clear the field for Kamala.

Here’s the opinion by Judge Chutkan: https://t.co/9en8o1ENCU

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) August 3, 2024

whatthehey78 said:

---

And so...what happens next? Who benefitted from this ruling?

---

No one really. Team Trump will file their new immunity motion. It will be denied, then back to DC Circuit!

As I noted last night, Chutkan had several defense motions pending before the case was halted awaiting SCOTUS ruling on immunity.

She took that time--it appears--to write order denying every motion. She so far has denied 2 defense motions to dismiss since the SCOTUS' order was… pic.twitter.com/brfHneWSNS

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 4, 2024

BREAKING: Jack Smith is not ready to proceed with J6 case in Washington. Asks for additional time to prepare status report—hearing Chutkan scheduled for next Friday likely cancelled. pic.twitter.com/1dI3NQOL69

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 8, 2024

Jackie boy not sure of his next move yet.

JUST lN: Jack Smith asks for (and Trump doesn’t oppose) a three week delay as they consider the impact of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling on Trump’s criminal case in D.C.

The ball is now in Chutkan’s court. pic.twitter.com/UC9BqOv1yW

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 8, 2024

Quote:

---

Jackie boy not sure of his next move yet.

---

Between the Fischer case (essentially gutting the 1512(c)(2) counts) and the immunity case ruling, not sure how much of a criminal case he has left. The two remaining charges are ambiguous at best without the 1512 counts, in my view.

Chutkan has granted the extension until September 5th.

🚨🚨BREAKING:

Jack Smith bows out in defeat…! pic.twitter.com/8Szm4HWa7e

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) August 23, 2024

jt2hunt said:

---

🚨🚨BREAKING:

Jack Smith bows out in defeat…! pic.twitter.com/8Szm4HWa7e

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) August 23, 2024

---

I guess that means the vote counters (or much worse) have provided commitments that the lawfare isn't needed.

🚨🚨🚨🚨BREAKING🚨🚨🚨

🚨LOREN MERCHAN AND HER BUSINESS PARTNER MIKE NELLIS WHO HAVE SERVED AS ADVISORS TO KAMALA HARRIS’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN JUST REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE HOUSE JUDICIARY’S RECORD REQUEST A SECOND TIME🚨

Mike Nellis @MikeNellis, the business partner of… https://t.co/EID7dMYepp pic.twitter.com/EXHw1TgH6Y

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) August 23, 2024

BREAKING: Jack Smith has filed a superseding indictment in Trump’s J6 case. Same charges, I’m assuming he deleted elements SCOTUS rules were immune from prosecution pic.twitter.com/sYK3obIcoi

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 27, 2024

Lawfare rolls on ...