Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has declared that he would fire Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing two federal cases against him, if he wins the November election. This statement has sparked concerns about Trump’s commitment to the rule of law and the potential for further erosion of the justice system.
Special Counsel Jack Smith, investigating former President Trump, has suffered two major legal setbacks in the Supreme Court this week. The court’s rulings, concerning presidential immunity and obstruction charges, are a blow to Smith’s case and could push the election interference trial beyond the 2024 election.
The Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling on presidential immunity, providing significant protection to former President Donald Trump and future presidents from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office. The decision clarifies the boundaries of presidential immunity, establishing that while presidents are not immune from prosecution for unofficial acts, courts cannot inquire into their motives or deem actions unofficial simply because they violate the law. The ruling has major implications for ongoing investigations into Trump, potentially limiting the reach of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s probes.
The Supreme Court ruled that presidents have substantial immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, sending the case back to lower courts. Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns about the constitutionality of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment, questioning whether the office was established by law. Former Attorney General Ed Meese argued that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, claiming he lacks the authority to represent the United States. Thomas echoed these concerns, suggesting that the prosecution cannot proceed without addressing the legality of the Special Counsel’s office.
During a House Judiciary hearing, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie questioned Attorney General Merrick Garland on the constitutionality of appointing Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate classified documents and the January 6 probe involving former President Donald Trump. Massie argued that Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, citing amicus briefs filed by former Attorney General Ed Meese. Garland defended the appointment, stating that it was based on regulations that have been in effect for decades and have been upheld by courts. Despite Garland’s response, Massie emphasized that the Constitution requires the appointment of a Special Counsel by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, which has not been done in this case.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has expressed support for defunding the Office of the Special Counsel amid ongoing investigations into former President Trump. Johnson stated that the Office, which typically receives autopilot funding, could potentially face scrutiny and restrictions.
House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik has filed an ethics complaint against special counsel Jack Smith, accusing him of violating Department of Justice (DOJ) standards and trying to tip the election against former President Trump. Specifically, Stefanik alleges that Smith attempted to influence the election by hastily scheduling the trial against Trump in the January 6th case, despite its complexity, and by repeatedly violating the District Court’s stay of proceedings. She cites Smith’s comments in court emphasizing the principle that “no American is above the law” as justification for an investigation into his own conduct.
Former President Donald Trump’s inner circle believes he has already won his Supreme Court presidential immunity case, according to sources. Word of celebrations arrived before the Supreme Court hears arguments in the case that has stymied special counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference investigation. Sources say the strategy of delay has been successful, regardless of the court’s ruling. Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team is preparing for a summer trial on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, which could coincide with the Republican National Convention and potentially damage his 2024 presidential campaign.
Special counsel Jack Smith has dismissed allegations made by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Stanley Woodward, that a Justice Department official threatened him during a meeting to discuss Trump’s former body man. Smith, in a newly published report, refutes Woodward’s claims, calling them implausible and without merit.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Thursday in a case that could significantly impact former President Trump’s legal battles. The case, Trump v. United States, will determine whether a former president can claim immunity from criminal charges for actions taken while in office. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is investigating Trump’s alleged involvement in the January 6th Capitol riot and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, argues that presidents are not above the law. Trump’s legal team, on the other hand, contends that granting immunity is essential to protect the presidency from political influence.
