LOS ANGELES.–Special Counsel Jack Smith, 55, Democrat’s hero for prosecuting 77-year-old President Donald Trump, panicked, realizing that he failed to get assurances from the Supreme Court that Trump, is even eligible for prosecution. You’d think that Smith would have thought of this before filing charges against Trump last April for his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection and for possessing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Now that Trump’s lawyers have raised the issue of presidential immunity, Smith acts like the Supreme Court must pander to his demands to a definitive decision. Why didn’t Smith ask the D.C. Court of Appeals for an answer, going through the usual chain-of-command? Now Smith reveals his true colors that he’s in over his head. Smith claims know that the “public interest” demands a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court.
Why should the Supreme Court save Smith from his reckless decision-making, marching full steam ahead with charges he’s not sure he can make. “The public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors immediate, definitive decision by this Court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity,” Smith told justices in his new filing. When the High Court gets Smith’s filing, they’ll be asking why it’s urgent now. Why didn’t Smith pose the same question eight months ago when he filed the charges against Trump? Supreme Court, even the three liberals, won’t agree with Smith’s sudden urgency for a ruling. Trump has asked the Supreme Court to let the Appellate Court in the D.C. deicide the case first before going to the High Court. Smith makes it a public interest argument, when the only interest is with partisan Democrats like Smith looking to prosecute Trump.
Smith and his Democrat backers want to start the trial in March when Trump’s lawyers raised objections based on providing their client the right kind of preparation for trial. Smith claims that Trump is using delay tactics, something the Supreme Court can’t assume is the reason behind seeking normal protocol, letting the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rule first before the Supreme Court. “Here, the stakes are at least as high, if not higher, the resolution of the question presented is pivotal to whether the former President himself will stand trial—which is scheduled to begin less than three months in the future,” Smith said in his filing. Why should the Supreme Court take Smith’s panic, knowing he’s had months since filing charges against Trump last Spring to figure things out. Smith carries the weight of the Democrat Party to sabotage Trump’s 2024 presidential bid.
What ‘s so pressing about Smith’s case, comparing it to the Watergate burglary during the Nixon administration? Smith conflates his politically-motivated case against Trump to a real criminal case involving an actual burglary by Nixon’s 1972 presidential campaign. Smith says the public interest is so compelling to prove that Trump planned and orchestrated the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. All members of the Supreme Court know that Trump was acquitted Feb. 13, 2021 in the U.S. Senate impeachment trial for “incitement of insurrection.” Supreme Court justices know all about Trump’s acquittal but, more importantly, that charges against Trump are politically-driven by a D.C. grand jury. What’s so compelling about Smith’s cases against Trump for the public interest? Smith’s cases, including the Mar-a-Lago classified docs case, are only compelling to Democrats.
Supreme Court Justice all know that the New York Times, CNN and liberal news establishment have made Trump’s prosecutions their top priority. But does the public interest really have a vested interest in prosecuting Trump? Smith can separate out his own Democrat bias against the former president, when he keeps talking about the public interest. Making such a forceful demand to the Supreme Court, Smith runs the risk of a stern rebuke, in the name of let the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals do their job first. Smith’s compelling public interest is about Democrats’ wish to sabotage Trump’s GOP nomination, occurring at the same time as Smith’s trial calendar. Smith told the Supreme Court that Trump “stands accused serious crimes because the grand jury followed the facts and applied the law . . .” Smith filed in his brief to the Supreme Court, asking for immediate action.
Smith’s so called compelling “public interest” is nothing more that Democrat Party interest in interfering with the 2024 election, denying Trump his right to run for president. Asking for an instant Supreme Court review shows the kind of helter-skelter way Smith goes about his job. Supreme Court Justices know a grand jury follows the facts presented to them by biased prosecutors. There’s nothing objective about the process watching the deck stacked against Trump. “The government seeks this Court’s resolution of the immunity claim so that those charges may be properly resolved, whatever the result,” Smith told the Court. “Enforcing federal criminal laws that protect such conduct is vital to protecting our constitutional process and democracy itself,” Smith told the Justices. Lecturing the Supreme Court about the Constitution says everything you need to know about Smith.
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.
