Trump is still gummed up with legal witch hunts. It’s the only card the Left has to play.
And now Jack Smith threw a curveball at Trump in court that is sending 2024 into question.
Special Counsel Jack Smith, once again showing his indecision, has requested additional time to figure out how to move forward with the January 6 prosecution of former President Trump.
This delay comes after the Supreme Court handed Trump a victory, ruling that he has some protection from prosecution as a former executive.
Instead of moving swiftly, as many had hoped, Smith has asked District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan for a three-week extension on the deadline to jointly propose how to proceed.
This request is likely to frustrate those who were calling for an evidentiary hearing with live witness testimony before the upcoming election.
Smith’s latest move underscores the confusion within his team, as they struggle to chart the best course after the Supreme Court ruled Trump is immune from prosecution for core actions he took as president and presumptively immune for all other official acts.
“The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States,” Smith’s team stated in their filing.
Despite consultations being “well underway,” the government has yet to finalize its stance on the schedule for briefing issues related to the decision.
Notably, Trump’s legal team did not object to this delay. Smith proposed that the parties weigh in on August 30, instead of the initially scheduled Friday, which would also push back the August 16 hearing set by Judge Chutkan.
Smith now faces tough decisions in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling, particularly on whether to narrow the charges brought against Trump in the indictment.
The court made it clear that Trump’s actions, such as his pressure campaign at the Justice Department and his discussions with former Vice President Mike Pence, are protected under his presidential immunity.
Adding to Smith’s challenges, the court also stated that “courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” casting further doubt on what evidence can be used in the case.
Despite these setbacks, some legal experts still hold out hope for some form of accountability.
Norman Eisen, who served as counsel for Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, suggested that Smith could call for an evidentiary hearing to determine which aspects of the indictment involve official acts versus private behavior.
This would serve as a “minitrial” of sorts, offering the public a glimpse into the case against Trump shortly before the election.
However, Smith’s delay and the internal deliberations at the Justice Department have only added to the growing list of obstacles in the case.
Smith also noted that Trump’s legal team would be unavailable the week of September 16, when Trump is set to face sentencing in his New York hush money trial.
Stay tuned to The Federalist Wire.
