"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!

There are quite a few people in the DOJ who need to spend significant time in prison.

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.