LOS ANGELES.–Supreme Court agreed today to rule of whether or not 77-year-old former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for any alleged acts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Trump appealed his case Feb. 6 to a three judge panel in the Circuit Court concluding that he has no immunity from prosecution because he was president at the time of the alleged acts to interfere with Jan. 6, 2021 certification of the Electoral College vote. With Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictments pending, Smith asked the High Court to rule before the case was appealed in the D.C. Circuit Court. But in ruling on Trump’s immunity claims, the Supreme Court must assume facts not in evidence, that Trump committed criminal acts himself, not those of criminals vandalizing the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Smith refers to the lawbreakers as Trump supporters, something not factual.
Whatever anyone’s motive for breaking the law, Smith claims, based on information collected over a year-and-a-half by the Jan. 6 House Committee, that Trump planned-and-orchestrated the Jan. 6, 2021 riots or “insurrection” as Democrats like to call it. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) charged Trump with “incitement of insurrection” to exclude him from running for president under the obscure Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Smith has no actual evidence that Trump participated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, or the more damaging charge that he planned-and-orchestrated the insurrection. So, when asked to rule on Trump’s immunity, Trump’s lawyers want the Supreme Court to rule on the facts in evidence, not some hypothetical set of charges. Supreme Court is already set to rule on the Colorado Supreme Court banning Trump from the ballot.
Smith charged Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, obstruction congressional certification of Biden’s Electoral College victory and conspiring to do so, and conspiring against the right to Americans to vote. Based on all of Smith’s unfounded charges, you’d think that the Supreme Court wouldn’t take a position on the factual basis to Smith’s case but only on whether he can bring charges against Trump for criminal acts allegedly committed while president. Supreme Court knows that Smith doesn’t have facts in evidence to convict Trump of anything, only a grand jury’s errant conclusions based on how government prosecutors presented the case. Calling Jan. 6 rioters “Trump supporters” gives the Supreme Court everything they need to know about the extreme prejudice with which Smith constructed his indictment against Trump, without any real factual evidence.
Trump argues to the Supreme Court that any pending trial would interfere with his 2024 election campaign, since legal proceeding would usurp his time from the campaign. Trump’s lawyers also argue that removing presidential immunity would prevent the president from conducting his job without interference from partisan witch hunts, unwarranted political prosecutions. Smith claims that Trump and his associates made false claims about the 2020 election, that the election was rigged and stolen by Democrats. Smith claims that Trump tried to stop the Jan. 6, 2021 Electoral College vote certification by ordering former Vice President Mike Pence to stop the vote certification or his followers to disrupt the Electoral College vote tally. On all counts, Smith has no factual evidence that Trump ordered anyone to disrupt an official vote certification process.
Supreme Court must decide the Constitutionality of the government prosecuting Trump for alleged criminal acts while president. Trump’s attorney’s argue that the only remedy to a presiding president is impeachment, not criminal prosecution. So when it comes to Smith’s charges they would have had to be prosecuted first under Congress’ Article One’s impeachment authority. Trump was acquitted Feb. 13, 2021 of “incitement of insurrection” by the U.S. Senate. So, attempting to prosecute Trump after the fact for alleged criminal acts while president would have to fall under Article One’s impeachment authority. Pending before the Supreme Court is ruling on whether the Colorado Supreme Court jumped the gun removing Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. Trump argues that Smith only had impeachment as his legal remedy for alleged crimes in office.
Taking up his immunity case, the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with the D.C. Circuit court three-judge ruling that Trump does not have immunity. If the Supreme Court agreed with the Circuit Court, they would have refused to take up the case. Today’s decision to rule on Trump’s immunity puts Smith’s case in limbo, prompting Democrats to complain the case could be postponed indefinitely or heard after the November presidential election. Democrat and the press fear that if Trump is elected, he would order his Attorney General to stop the prosecution or pardon himself, preventing the Justice Department from prosecuting. Democrats and the press are finding out that the U.S. justice system doesn’t operate on a political timetable but instead must follow the rule of law. If the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor, it could pull the rug out from underneath the government’s cases.
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.
