SUPREME COURT DENIES SMITH’S REQUEST

U.S. Supreme Court denied 55-year-old Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request to rule quickly on whether 77-year-old President Donald Trump is immune to prosecution, sending the matter to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on the question. Smith argued in his brief that time was of the essence with a scheduled March 4, 2024 trial date to prosecute Trump for his alleged role in the Jan. 6 insurrection attempting to interfere with certification of the Electoral College vote. Smith told the court that a D.C. Grand Jury reviewed the facts and determined Trump had committed egregious crimes needing a speedy trial. Supreme Court justices rejected Smith’s arguments without explanation but probably wonder why Smith thinks there’s such urgency for a trial. Trump’s attorneys have cautioned the Supreme Court to not rule hastily on Smith’s urgent request.
Smith’s brief insisted that there was compelling public interest to have a speedy trial because the nature of the offenses noted by the grand jury. Before Smith filed charges in June and Aug. 2023 for Mar-a-Lago classified docs and obstruction case, the Supreme Court probably wonders why Smith wasn’t concerned before about Trump’s presidential immunity? No one doubts today with the 2024 election rapidly approaching, that Smith is concerned that if the trial is delayed until after the 2024 election, Trump could, if he wins, pardon himself. Well, that’s certainly the concern of Democrats and the press that would like to see Trump convicted. But do DOJ prosecutors like Smith concern themselves with politics? Why does Smith care about when the trial begins? What’s so compelling about the charges that he felt inclined to lecture the Supreme Court about its urgency?
Democrats and the press act the Supreme Court denial of Smith’s request for a definitive answer on presidential immunity pulled the rug out from underneath their plans to convict Trump of a felony before the election. D.C. Appellate Court is scheduled to hear the case of Trump’s presidential immunity on Jan. 9, 2924 with expectations that it would rule quickly. Whether or not the Supreme Court would take the case quickly out-of-calendar at that point is anyone’s guess, pushing the case back until after the 2024 election. Smith argues to the Supreme Court in his brief that both cases, the obstruction of the Electoral College vote and the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, require immediate attention. But does the High Court really see Smith’s indictments any different than any other criminal case fitting into the normal calendar of already scheduled cases?
Democrats and the press have pressed Smith to act in haste because there’s a concern about the outcome of the 2024 election. If Trump beats 81-year-old President Joe Biden, Democrats and the press worry he would pardon himself and never go to trial. But when the Supreme Court really looks at the charges against Trump, they ask themselves what’s the rush? Does Smith, as he stated when indicting Trump in June and Aug. 2023, really think that holding worthless old classified documents at Mar-a-Lago in White House moving boxes really threaten U.S. national security? Does Smith have any awareness of how that sounds? He sounds like a CNN pundit salivating nightly trying-and-convicting Trump for ratings. Smith plans to charge Trump under the arcane 1917 Espionage Act for worthless, old classified documents having no impact on anyone.
Smith finds it urgent to know whether Trump is even eligible for prosecution, without bothering to research the answer before filing charges. Does Smith really think the highly biased House Jan. 6 Select Committee find anything compelling? House Select Committee Co-Chairs, former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.) and former Rep. Adam Kinsinger (R-Il.) both have an ax to grind against Trump, insisting he planned and orchestrated the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection. But do they really have the facts to back it up? Cheney and Kinsinger despite Trump, would do anything, including fabricate evidence, to see Trump convicted. But how does their antipathy toward Trump related to Smith’s urgency in pressing the Supreme Court to rule on immunity before the question goes to the Circuit Court? Supreme Court justice must be highly dubious of Smith’s motives.
Smith finds himself rebuffed by the Supreme Court, demanding they determine whether Trump has presidential immunity from trial. Well, it’s a little late in the game for Smith to be figuring that out now. Shouldn’t he have found that out before charging Trump with 54 felonies between the Mar-a-Lago classified docs case and the Jan. 6 obstruction case? Cheney and Kinsinger call the Jan. 6 insurrectionists Trump supporters, but are they really? Are they really? All Cheney and Kinsinger know is that a group of rabble rousers vandalized the Capitol, not whether they back Trump for president. President Joe Biden said Dec. 21 that it was obvious Trump was guilty of insurrection. Since no court has found him guilty, on what basis does Biden conclude anything about the former president? Biden has done more to prejudice Trump’s upcoming trials than CNN and the New York Times.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.