Pelosi Says Trump Needs ‘To Pay’ For Jan 6th, Is She Crazy?

By

Jack Smith Refuses To Back Down

Special Counsel Jack Smith has updated his case against former President Donald Trump following a Supreme Court ruling that granted broad criminal immunity to former presidents. The revised indictment no longer refers to Trump by his former presidential title but instead identifies him as a former candidate, adhering to the Supreme Court’s directives regarding the immunity of presidential actions.

Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, which affects parts of the case, the filing indicates that Smith is steadfast, maintaining the essential allegations against Trump. This resilience is evident as the special counsel navigates through the complexities introduced by the court, particularly the limitations on using certain presidential actions as evidence.

Significant changes in the indictment include the removal of references to Trump’s attempts to change leadership within the Justice Department and the acknowledgment of actions taken by Trump and his associates that were outside the scope of official presidential duties, focusing instead on their roles as private individuals or campaign officials.

For instance, the indictment highlights Trump’s use of campaign resources to disseminate misinformation about the election and specifies that his January 6 speech was a campaign activity, not a presidential one. Furthermore, it differentiates the roles of various associates, describing some as private attorneys or consultants, thereby emphasizing their non-governmental capacities.

The filing also omits certain conversations and actions related to federal officials, streamlining the charges to focus on actions clearly outside presidential immunity as defined by the Supreme Court. For example, allegations regarding Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department to influence election outcomes in key states have been significantly pared down.

Another noteworthy aspect of Smith’s strategy includes presenting the revised charges to a new grand jury, which underscores the ongoing legal process and counters potential critiques about the original jury’s considerations post-immunity ruling.

This recalibration of the case places several crucial decisions before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will determine the legal standing of the revised charges in light of the Supreme Court’s guidelines. The outcomes of this judicial review could profoundly impact the legal landscape surrounding executive immunity and the accountability of actions taken while in office.