{"id":2337196,"date":"2024-09-05T12:19:01","date_gmt":"2024-09-05T16:19:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-scotus-immunity-ruling-could-thwart-each-get-trump-case\/"},"modified":"2024-09-05T12:23:30","modified_gmt":"2024-09-05T16:23:30","slug":"how-scotus-immunity-ruling-could-thwart-each-get-trump-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-scotus-immunity-ruling-could-thwart-each-get-trump-case\/","title":{"rendered":"How SCOTUS&#8217; Immunity Ruling Could Thwart Each &#8216;Get Trump&#8217; Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">20<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fhow-scotus-immunity-ruling-could-thwart-each-get-trump-case%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2337196&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/trump-more-votes-than-voters-in-key-swing-states\/\" title=\"Trump: More Votes Than Voters in Key Swing States\">ongoing legal challenges<\/a> against former President Trump\u2063 are facing\u200b significant hurdles.\u2062 Recently,\u200d Judge\u200c Chutkan of the D.C. District Court granted\u2062 both the prosecution and defense additional time to evaluate the implications of the Supreme Court&#8217;s\u2064 ruling in *Trump v. United States*, which established that presidents have &#8220;absolute immunity&#8221; from criminal prosecution for actions within \u200ctheir official\u200b authority. This decision has made it more difficult for Special Counsel Jack\u2062 Smith\u2062 to proceed with his case against Trump, which includes \u200ccharges of election \u2064interference related to the\u2062 events of January 6, 2021.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling not only narrows the \u200bscope \u200cof Trump&#8217;s potential prosecution but also creates a\u2064 precedent that affects other cases against him, such as his indictment in Manhattan for <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/are-the-charges-brought-against-the-trump-organizations-cfo-part-of-a-witch-hunt-experts-weigh-in\/\" title=\"Are The Charges Brought Against The Trump Organization\u2019s CFO Part Of A Witch Hunt? Experts Weigh In\">falsifying business records<\/a> and the handling of classified documents in\u2063 Florida. In New\u200b York, Trump\u2019s lawyers \u200dargue \u2064that the new immunity ruling \u200bcould invalidate his recent felony convictions related to a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/watchdog-blms-6-million-mansion-purchase-violates-irs-law\/\" title=\"Watchdog: BLM\u2019s  Million Mansion Purchase Violates IRS Law\">nondisclosure agreement linked<\/a> to a pornographic actress. In Florida, a \u200cjudge has already dismissed charges in the classified\u2062 documents case, citing concerns\u200c about\u2064 the constitutionality of Smith&#8217;s appointment as \u200dspecial counsel.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, obscenity \u200bsurrounds\u2062 the Fulton County case concerning Trump&#8217;s questioning of election\u200b results, \u200bwith allegations of impropriety involving the prosecuting attorney.\u200b these developments indicate significant legal challenges for \u2062prosecutors \u2062seeking to \u200dhold Trump \u200caccountable, as various rulings and legal interpretations\u200b increasingly favor the former president\u2019s claims of immunity while\u200b in office.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>The disappointment continues to mount for prosecutors hell-bent on their mission to &ldquo;Get Trump.&rdquo; For instance, earlier this month, Judge Chutkan of the D.C. District Court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/08\/09\/us\/politics\/trump-election-case-supreme-court.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">gave<\/a> both the prosecution and the defense another few weeks to mull over how the Supreme Court&rsquo;s recent ruling in <em>Trump v. United States <\/em>might affect Jack Smith&rsquo;s election interference case against President Trump, charging the former president with four felonies.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>In her order, Judge Chutkan asked both the prosecutor Jack Smith and the defense to provide a detailed plan for how they intend to pursue the robust &ldquo;fact-finding mission&rdquo; now required under the Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision under <em>Trump <\/em>by Aug. 30, according to The New York Times. Jack Smith originally had requested the extension to &ldquo;assess the new precedent,&rdquo; the outlet reported.<\/p>\n<p>The &ldquo;new precedent&rdquo; bemoaned by Smith is a good one &mdash; and a necessary one. In its landmark <em>Trump <\/em>decision on July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/23-939_e2pg.pdf\">ruled<\/a> that the former president has &ldquo;absolute immunity from criminal prosecution&rdquo; for &ldquo;actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,&rdquo; reiterating that presidents must enjoy a &ldquo;presumption of immunity&rdquo; when engaging in &ldquo;official acts.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Washington, D.C.:&nbsp; Prosecution by Biden DOJ for Jan. 6 Speech<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>This is the case, brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, out of which the Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision arose. <\/p>\n<p>In its opinion, the majority effectively shrunk the universe of possible acts for which Trump could be prosecuted, determining, for instance, that President Trump&rsquo;s alleged efforts to &ldquo;leverage the Justice Department&rsquo;s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump&rsquo;s fraudulent slates of electors&rdquo; are non-prosecutable offenses, even if proven.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The court also determined that his interactions with Vice President Mike Pence regarding rejecting the states&rsquo; electoral votes on the basis of possible fraud were presumptively immune, insofar as each was discussing actions taken in his official role. According to the court, this presumptive immunity may also extend to a host of other communications President Trump may have had or engaged in, including conversations with local officials and various tweets he may have sent out in relation to the 2020 election.<\/p>\n<p>Recognizing what a barricade the court&rsquo;s <em>Trump<\/em> decision presented to his case, and with just two months to go before Election Day, Smith filed a <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/08\/28\/jack-smith-indicts-trump-for-exercising-first-amendment-right-to-question-election-results\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">superseding indictment<\/a> last week that attempts to distinguish between acts by Trump as a private citizen and acts as a president. (This came despite the Department of Justice&rsquo;s standing practice that, within two months of an election, it should refrain from an action that favors or disadvantages any political candidate.) President Trump&rsquo;s lawyers have countered that the very evidence heard by the grand jury &mdash; which itself contained details of official acts &mdash; is enough to achieve the bar of immunity and that the case must therefore be thrown out.<\/p>\n<p>What&rsquo;s more, <em>Trump <\/em>isn&rsquo;t the only Supreme Court case that substantially handicaps Jack Smith&rsquo;s case. <\/p>\n<p>Smith <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2023\/08\/03\/jack-smiths-latest-indictment-is-legally-flawed-and-politically-suspect\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">indicted President Trump on four counts of conspiracy and obstruction<\/a> related to his actions on Jan. 6, 2021.&nbsp;The counts related to obstruction are now likely barred by the Supreme Court&rsquo;s opinion in <em>Fischer v. United States<\/em>. In that case, the Supreme Court <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/06\/28\/supreme-court-tosses-obstruction-charges-for-j6-defendants\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">determined<\/a> that the obstruction charges facing hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, as well as President Trump himself, are to be interpreted in a much narrower manner than the Department of Justice had interpreted them.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Despite attempts by the left to portray this ruling as inconsequential for President Trump, it is surely a boon with regard to at least two counts in Jack Smith&rsquo;s original four-count indictment.<\/p>\n<p>Namely, the Supreme Court determined that section 1512(c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act concerning obstruction of justice must involve the obstruction of a proceeding through the destruction, alteration, or concealment of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/23-5572_l6hn.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>evidence<\/em><\/a>; unlike the DOJ&rsquo;s wide interpretation, it is not enough for an official proceeding to be simply obstructed. The ruling throws into question the indictment of some 350 Jan. 6 defendants, plus two of the four counts against President Trump here.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, with <em>Fischer <\/em>decided, the bar is now much higher for those prosecuting Trump. It is not enough to simply declare the former president galvanized his base and pressured then-Vice President Pence to count electoral votes in a certain fashion.<\/p>\n<p>Also notable: Smith&rsquo;s very appointment was just invalidated by a federal judge in Florida in a separate case. While that case does not carry the weight of precedent in another jurisdiction, it should certainly carry persuasive value with the federal judge hearing this case. Should that judge agree with Judge Cannon&rsquo;s decision, it would follow that these charges would also be dismissed.<\/p>\n<p>Jack Smith&rsquo;s prosecution of the former president in Washington, D.C. isn&rsquo;t the only one of the various politically charged cases Democrats have stacked up against the former president which may fall apart after the Supreme Court&rsquo;s immunity ruling.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Manhattan, New York: Prosecution by DA Alvin Bragg for NDA Payment<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>After Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prosecuted Trump for supposed &ldquo;falsification of business records&rdquo; over a nondisclosure agreement Trump&rsquo;s lawyer had procured from a pornographic film actress, a New York jury &mdash; shepherded by a judge who donated to Biden&rsquo;s campaign &mdash; returned a conviction. Now, as a result of the <em>Trump<\/em> ruling, every one of the &ldquo;34 felony convictions&rdquo; so oft celebrated by the left &mdash; and patently non-decipherable to the rest of the country &mdash; faces a serious threat.<\/p>\n<p>The judge in that case must determine whether the presidential immunity outlined in <em>Trump<\/em> must invalidate the charges alleging President Trump falsified business records. President Trump&rsquo;s lawyers have <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/07\/11\/nyregion\/trump-immunity-hush-money-conviction.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">argued<\/a> that this immunity invalidates the verdicts as evidence relied on by jurors would have been protected by the finding of immunity, and New York D.A. Alvin Bragg recently sent a letter to the judge <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nationalreview.com\/corner\/bragg-concedes-trumps-appellate-rights-on-immunity-issue-signaling-postponement-of-sentencing\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">acknowledging<\/a> the validity of this argument. If the judge here agrees, those 34 felony convictions would likely evaporate.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Southern District of Florida: Prosecution by Biden DOJ for Handling of Classified Documents<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Judge Aileen Cannon already <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/07\/15\/judge-in-docs-case-throws-out-dojs-lawfare-against-trump-rules-jack-smiths-appointment-unconstitutional\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">dismissed<\/a> the charges in this case, ruling the appointment of Jack Smith unconstitutional. Judge Cannon may have found Supreme Court Justice Thomas&rsquo;s concurring opinion in <em>Trump <\/em>a compelling one. There, he questioned whether, as a threshold matter, Jack Smith&rsquo;s fishing expedition was even a legitimate and constitutional enterprise, noting that no president has <em>ever <\/em>faced prosecution for acts while in office.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,&rdquo; Justice Thomas wrote. &ldquo;The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel&rsquo;s appointment before proceeding.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Judge Cannon found that Smith&rsquo;s appointment was unconstitutional due to improper funding, insufficient appointment procedures by the president and senate, and a lack of statutory authority. Naturally, Smith has <a href=\"https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2024\/08\/26\/g-s1-19642\/special-counsel-jack-smith-judge-cannon-appeal-trump-classified-documents\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">appealed<\/a> this decision, however, a federal appeals court would need to overturn Judge Cannon&rsquo;s decision for this case to proceed.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Fulton County, Georgia: Prosecution by DA Fani Willis for Questioning Election Results<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>What remains of the left&rsquo;s assault on the former president is somewhat unimpressive. The election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia, remains more reminiscent of a Jerry Springer episode than of a local prosecutor holding power to account, as it was revealed that District Attorney Fani Willis had been engaging in an expensive affair with her <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/house-republicans-demand-testimony-from-former-prosecutor-who-called-for-trump-charges\/\" title=\"House Republicans Demand Testimony From Former Prosecutor Who Called for Trump Charges\">special assistant district attorney<\/a> (who, coincidentally, had been hired specifically to work on this case).<\/p>\n<p>While the court rejected that Willis stood to benefit financially from keeping the case alive, insofar as Wade wined and dined with his boss, it&rsquo;s fairly obvious that, as The Federalist&rsquo;s Margot Cleveland <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/03\/18\/its-a-miscarriage-of-justice-to-let-fani-willis-keep-prosecuting-trump\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">writes<\/a>, &ldquo;Willis could benefit personally without benefiting financially by bestowing her beau with a cushy county contract, whether it gave Willis a sense of control in the relationship, helped her curry favor with Wade, or merely provided Willis a chance to spend more time with her lover.&rdquo;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The indictment remains alive for now, but the credibility of the prosecutor is shot.<\/p>\n<p>In <em>Trump,<\/em> the court noted that the former president has argued it is &ldquo;[a]bsolutely an official act for the president to communicate with state officials on &hellip; the integrity of a federal election.&rdquo; Since Willis&rsquo; case is predominantly based on a phone call Trump made with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger about the 2020 presidential election, the Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision could neuter Willis&rsquo; lawfare campaign too, if Willis doesn&rsquo;t do so on her own first.<\/p>\n<p>In short, <em>Trump <\/em>and <em>Fischer<\/em>, and the downfall of Fani Willis,<em> <\/em>collectively mean that the Democrats&rsquo; larger lawfare project has all but collapsed. The all-encompassing project of criminalizing President Trump has been effectively kneecapped. Democrats are no doubt scrambling to locate more novel charges to bring against the former president, but the judicial branch must hold strong as a voice of sanity amidst a sea of lawfare against Republicans.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Steve Roberts is a partner and Erielle Davidson is an associate with Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinksy &amp; Josefiak PLLC. They can be reached at sroberts@holtzmanvogel.com and edavidson@holtzmanvogel.com.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The frustration is growing for prosecutors determined to &#8220;Get Trump.&#8221; Earlier this month, Judge Chutkan of the D.C. District Court granted both the prosecution and defense additional time to consider how the Supreme Court&#8217;s recent decision in Trump v. United States could impact Jack Smith&#8217;s case against President Trump, who faces four felony charges related to election interference. In her ruling, Judge Chutkan instructed both parties to submit a comprehensive plan by August 30 on how they will conduct the necessary &#8220;fact-finding mission&#8221; mandated by the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling. Jack Smith had initially requested this extension to evaluate the new legal precedent.<\/p>\n<p>The &#8220;new precedent&#8221; that Smith lamented is actually beneficial and essential. In its significant July 1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that former President Trump has \u201cabsolute immunity from criminal prosecution\u201d for actions taken within his constitutional authority, emphasizing that presidents should have a \u201cpresumption of immunity\u201d when performing official duties.<\/p>\n<p>This case stems from Special Counsel Jack Smith\u2019s investigation into Trump&#8217;s actions surrounding January 6th, which led to the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling. The majority opinion effectively narrowed down potential prosecutable actions against Trump, concluding that his alleged attempts to influence state electors through Justice Department channels are not prosecutable offenses even if proven true.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, interactions between Trump and Vice President Mike Pence regarding electoral votes were deemed presumptively immune since they pertained to official duties. This presumption may also apply broadly to other communications involving Trump during his presidency.<\/p>\n<p>Recognizing how challenging this ruling makes his case\u2014especially with Election Day approaching\u2014Smith filed an updated indictment last week attempting to differentiate between Trump&#8217;s private citizen activities and those as president. This move comes despite DOJ guidelines suggesting restraint in politically sensitive cases close to elections.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, Trump&#8217;s legal team argues that evidence presented before a grand jury\u2014which included details of official acts\u2014should meet immunity standards and warrant dismissal of charges against him.<\/p>\n<p>Trump isn&#8217;t alone; other cases against him may also be undermined by recent Supreme Court rulings affecting Jack Smith\u2019s prosecution strategy. For instance, obstruction-related counts in Trump&#8217;s indictment could be impacted by Fischer v. United States\u2014a case where obstruction definitions were narrowed significantly compared with previous interpretations used by DOJ officials.<\/p>\n<p>Despite efforts from some factions on the left downplaying these developments&#8217; significance for Trump\u2019s situation, they indeed bolster defenses concerning at least two counts in Smith&#8217;s original indictment due to stricter interpretations established by Fischer regarding what constitutes obstruction under federal law.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, Judge Aileen Cannon previously dismissed charges related to classified documents handling based on concerns about Jack Smith&#8217;s appointment being unconstitutional\u2014a point bolstered by Justice Thomas\u2019 concurring opinion questioning whether such prosecutions are legitimate given historical precedents involving sitting presidents facing no prior criminal charges for their official acts while in office.<\/p>\n<p>In Fulton County Georgia\u2014the site of another politically charged prosecution led by DA Fani Willis over election results questioning\u2014the credibility of her office has been called into question amid revelations about personal relationships affecting professional conduct within her team; thus further complicating any ongoing legal challenges stemming from those proceedings as well as potentially jeopardizing their validity under newly established presidential immunities outlined earlier this month.<\/p>\n<p>In summary: The combination of rulings surrounding Trump&#8217;s cases\u2014including those pertaining specifically towards Fischer\u2014and issues raised regarding Fani Willis\u2019 credibility collectively suggest significant hurdles ahead for Democrats pursuing various legal avenues aimed at criminalizing former President Donald J.Trump amidst ongoing political tensions across America today<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3415,"featured_media":2337197,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_swag.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[19329,33510,36218,6994,32275],"class_list":["post-2337196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-get-trump","tag-immunity-ruling","tag-legal-analysis","tag-scotus","tag-supreme-court"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_swag.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2337196","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3415"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2337196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2337196\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2337197"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2337196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2337196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2337196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}