Smith’s Superseding Indictment Returns Trump Case to Square One

I don't disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling around immunity for official acts. It doesn't create a dictatorship as we still have the ability to vote someone out of office and our elected officials have the right to impeach and remove the president from office.

I also, believe that much of the President's actions fall under that level of immunity. He can say and believe what he wants. And he shouldn't be charged for that.

But I also believe he crossed the line. In such areas as asking the Governor of Georgia to "find votes" (as caught on tape), and asking the VP not to certify the results in the Senate. Were they legal or illegal? Not sure. I will leave that up to a jury of Trump's peers to determine based on the evidence and the law. But I believe the special counsel is within his rights to at least charge, and a grand jury to indict someone on those charges.

Jack Smith was just told by a court that he had no right to function as a special counsel, and now he files this? Really? It is as if he's trying to inflict as much damage as he can before the courts finally shut him down.

This is a textbook example of "the process is the punishment", and it should result in Jack Smith losing his law license, and possibly others on his staff who didn't remind him of his inability to function as special counsel.

Jack Smith was just told by a court that he had no right to function as a special counsel

That is in the appeals process. I think it’s probably not unusual to move forward when something like that is going through an appeal decision. I wouldn’t know, I guess. But it seems like cases getting challenged and then moving forward while they challenge the challenge happens all the time.

Smith's indictment was struck down 6-3 in the Supreme Court at about the same time his appointment was struck down by Judge Cannon. The fix for the portion of the indictment that could stand vs. Trump v. United States was simply to transfer the case (and Smith and his staff) to the supervision of U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe.

Why wasn't that done? My hunch is that Smith and Garland want to do maximum damage to Trump, and Lapointe was a more honest sort who might ask why Trump was being prosecuted when Biden and Hilliary Clinton were not for the same crimes. It would also expose the deliberations of Smith's team to new staff that Lapointe might appoint, staff who might raise the same kinds of questions.

Sorry, but anyone who continues to issue indictments in this kind of setting while running out the clock on his own legal troubles needs to be removed from the legal profession.

Sorry, but anyone who continues to issue indictments in this kind of setting while running out the clock on his own legal troubles needs to be removed from the legal profession.

There's plenty to be concerned about regarding how Judge Cannon has handled the case, clearly protecting Trump. Are we bothered by that too, or only by Smith?

Jack Smith is not in legal trouble. He was appointed as special counsel under the same guidelines going all the way back to Nixon (Watergate). This appointment process has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Could it be argued otherwise? Sure. So Cannon issued a ruling (most of hers has been a bit dubious to begin with). It is going through an appeals process, just like Trump did for his charges. Doesn't make him illegal, nor is he a dictator dictating his own processes. He is a servant that was appointed by someone else. He didn't appoint himself.