In the ridiculous federal election interference case in D.C., President Trump’s attorneys argued to the DC Circuit appellate court that President Trump holds inherent constitutional immunity. In essence, because President Trump was acquitted by the Senate of claims he incited or instigated the January 6, 2021, events, lawyers arguing under the constitution that only impeached and removed presidents can be criminally prosecuted.
The initial 3-judge panel of the court has taken up the appeal, and all subsequent lower court activity was suspended until the constitutional issue is resolved. Again, if President Trump does not have immunity, then all preceding and future presidents can be criminally prosecuted for any/all events and decisions while holding office. This is a core issue, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has to tread very carefully with these ramifications at the forefront.
The decision of the 3-judge panel could also be followed by a full en-banc review by all judges in the circuit. Then, depending on their decision, it could -likely will- go even higher to the U.S. Supreme Court. All of this takes time, and the initial 3-judge appeals court have not provided any hints on their timeline.
Apparently, as a consequence, the entire trial of the case has been removed from the lower DC court docket. The removal took place within the last few days, and the Washington Post noticed the removal. This removal means the timing of the case, if at all, is completely unknown now.
WASHINGTON – Former president Donald Trump’s March 4 trial date on charges of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election has been dropped from the public calendar of the federal court in Washington, a sign of what has long been anticipated — that his claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would delay his trial while it remains on appeal.
The change did not appear on the official criminal case docket before U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who has made clear since Trump filed his appeal on Dec. 7 that all trial deadlines would be suspended while he challenges the case. On appeal, Trump is arguing that the government does not have authority under the Constitution to bring charges against him for actions he took while president after the 2020 election through the Jan. 6, 2021. (read more)
In addition to the challenges within these core issues, the Lawfare approach by Jack Smith, Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann, faces multiple additional hurdles. These are all issues that surface when Lawfare, the application of twisted legal theory intended to manipulate public opinion, runs into the reality of ever-increasing scrutiny from courts.
Combine these fraudulent legal theories with the reality that President Trump’s status is almost certainly “presumptive presidential nominee” in the eyes of the entire judicial branch, and things change. The pretending justification for the Lawfare claims now hit the non-pretending and visible reality of political intent.
The judicial scrutiny gets even more focused, and the explanations demanded as justifications to target President Trump increase. As the calendar of the November election gets closer Jack, Mary and Andrew will have to rely on ideologically aligned black robes to maintain their Lawfare pretense. Some of the robes will not be comfortable with the demands of Jack, Mary and Andrew.
Some of the robes may not pretend, and that poses a problem for Jack, Mary and Andrew.
