The threat Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump is to our nation | Eastern North Carolina Now

February 23, 2024

By Sean Ross Callaghan - American Thinker

Imagine a crime committed right on the floor of the United States Senate. “Will my colleague from New York agree,” asks the senator from California, “that at five o’clock next Saturday, we will shoot the president in the middle of Fifth Avenue?”

“I agree,” replies the senator from New York. “To help us accomplish our end, I will now vote to disband the Secret Service.”

After the senators commit criminal conspiracy live on C-SPAN -- that’s agreeing to a crime and taking one act to accomplish it -- nothing happens. Neither get so much as much as a ticket. That’s because the senators are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution under the Constitution.

The Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause provides that a congressman may not be put on trial for any “legislative act.” Hence Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska could commit a grave felony in 1971 when he disclosed the top-secret Pentagon Papers. He did so at a hearing of the Senate’s Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, so no prosecutor could touch him. Had he released the papers in the hallway outside the hearing room, he’d have been in handcuffs.

A president has it harder, according to Special Counsel Jack Smith. In the Justice Department’s prosecution of President Trump for contesting the 2020 election results, Smith argues that he may put Trump on trial for official presidential acts. All that’s required to arrest Trump, says Smith, is that just over half of a biased Washington, D.C., grand jury conclude that his words or deeds fall within the vague wording of a rarely charged criminal statute. In Smith’s telling, he may put a president on trial for standing in the Speaker’s Lobby off the House floor to urge congressmen to vote against certifying an election -- but because voting is a legislative act, not the congressmen who stand three feet away and actually cast the votes as urged.

Smith admits that a president must be protected by at least a qualified immunity from criminal prosecution -- but he refuses to spell out exactly what that immunity is. Smith could propose an immunity covering only acts that double as political speech or petition or permitting prosecution only for clear crimes. Smith instead just swings his bat at a baseball he cannot see and declares a home run: whatever immunity a president has, he asserts, it cannot cover President Trump.

There’s another kind of prosecution besides criminal prosecution. It’s political prosecution. The Supreme Court should immunize President Trump from political prosecution by delaying his trial until after the election. It can then turn to the complex question of a president’s immunity from criminal prosecution and give it a far more thorough and thoughtful treatment than blindfolded baseball pitched by Jack Smith.

The politics of Jack Smith’s prosecution arises from its initial delay. The Justice Department rigged the case against President Trump so that if convicted, he could not get a reversal of the conviction until after the election. It waited almost two years to appoint Smith and then Smith waited almost another year to bring charges so that a conviction would come right as voters start voting.

Although President Trump is seeking immunity, he has reason to prefer trial. He would probably be convicted by a Washington, D.C., jury, which comes from a 95% anti-Trump jury pool, but by getting a conviction reversed, he could demonstrate the Justice Department’s brazen corruption in charging him in the first place. Jack Smith charged Trump with a fake crime, so a conviction may well be reversed. But appeals take time, often years. The election is only months away.

A case that falls apart after drawing blood: that’s the mark of plots against President Trump. It’s the mark of Jack Smith, too, whose other big verdict, which put a global accounting firm out of business, got unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court -- but only after the firm had long since closed its doors.

Today, Smith is again bending the law through its snapping point, all so he can see “Trump Convicted” sprawled across NBC Nightly News right before voters go to the polls. He is trying to launder the political bias of a Washington jury through the prestige of the federal courts to sway moderate voters in Wisconsin.

But Smith has fallen behind schedule, and his verdict is starting to look as if it will come only after the election. So after years of delay, he’s demanding that his conspiracy case against President Trump go five times faster than it would for any other defendant. Even a former federal prosecutor sympathetic to Smith’s case admits that his rush is “blood-and-guts political.”

Courts cannot speed up trials just because the public may be curious about whether the accused will get convicted. The constitutional right to a speedy trial is the defendant’s alone. It’s neither the public’s nor the press’ nor, especially, Jack Smith’s. Smith knows that. And he knows that Justice Department policy -- albeit one it often ignores -- bars him from using a prosecution to try to influence an election. So without an actual legal reason to offer, he’s now resorted to importuning the courts at every turn to go faster. He begs for help from any federal judge who shares his lust for President Trump’s political blood.

It’s high time that nine justices of the Supreme Court unite in a single denunciation of lawyers like Smith who press novel legal claims for political blood sport. Their cases enrage half the country from the start. They eventually disappoint the other half, which is never told that these legally speculative cases are likely to fail. And they leave the legitimacy of the federal courts in tatters for everyone. A unanimous Supreme Court should restore the federal courts’ reputation by denouncing “Javert” Jack Smith and his jurisprudence of jihad and announcing that it will take all due time to consider presidential immunity from criminal prosecution and to craft an opinion to stand the test of time, the timing of the election be damned. 


Go Back

Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )


Big Bob said:
( February 27th, 2024 @ 11:37 am )
sounds racist - why not just say a Harvard professor?
( February 27th, 2024 @ 8:32 am )
Same ole' troll Bobbie. Pesky little things like FACTS have nothing to do with it for him, only the narrative of the far left. For those like Little Bobbie the narrative is "the truth". Nothing else matters.

The fact that the professor is black would negate the usual "white supremist" attacks from the far left. It is a relevent fact to negate an anticipated comeback by you so it makes sense that it was mentioned.

It is like when renowned scientists reject the trendy climate alarmist theory. The fact that they are scientists makes a difference. That is also true when dedicated ecologists reject that theory.
Big Bob said:
( February 27th, 2024 @ 8:13 am )
What does the professors skin color have to do with it?
( February 27th, 2024 @ 7:11 am )
If it is not from your far left echo chamber, I am sure you will not even read it, Bigot Bob, but a black Economics professor at Harvard University, analyzed the actual numbers on police shootings by race, and found out that the contention that blacks were more likely to be shot by police was simply wrong. It is an urban legend that is politicized by the far left including trolls like yourself.
Big Bob said:
( February 26th, 2024 @ 7:58 pm )
Oh a study! Is that like a link?
( February 26th, 2024 @ 6:47 pm )
Funny thing about that part of the far left narrative, Bigot Bob. A study by a black Harvard economics professor found that blacks are actually less likely to be shot by a police officer than other ethnic groups.
Big Bob said:
( February 26th, 2024 @ 5:51 pm )
Still butt hurt cause African Americans tired of being murdered by the police? Tough
( February 26th, 2024 @ 2:30 pm )
ANTIFA are the storm troopers of "woke" and they are a violent, vicious, dangerous, and nasty bunch of thugs.
( February 26th, 2024 @ 1:48 pm )
The "woke" ideology is left of Lenin. No "decent human being" supports that Marxist crap.
Big Bob said:
( February 26th, 2024 @ 12:17 pm )

likely already on thei list
Big Bob said:
( February 26th, 2024 @ 12:00 pm )
Being a decent human being (woke) will never go out of style. Unfortunately neither does hate.
( February 26th, 2024 @ 8:25 am )
I'll fix it for you, Bullsh!t Bob: Mark my words, without an enemy, WOKE will go looking for one. Will it be you? Or you? Or you over there? You know I'm right.
View All Comments

Michael Keaton Praises ‘Fun’ Set Of ‘Beetlejuice 2,’ Says It’s All ‘Handmade’ Without ‘Too Much Technology’ News and Commentary, Rant & Rave, Editorials, Beaufort Observer, Op-Ed & Politics Revelation Chapter 21: A narrative of two cities, exploring the Heavenly City


Back to Top