Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“Special counsel Jack Smith filed a new indictment Tuesday against Donald Trump over his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election that keeps the same criminal charges but narrows the allegations against him following a Supreme Court opinion that conferred broad immunity on former presidents.” AP News
Here’s our coverage of the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. The Flip Side
The left supports the indictment, and criticizes the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“Let’s be serious: The fact that Trump occupied the highest office in the land is central to his criminality. He sought to use all the powers of that position to prevent the peaceful transfer of power; his subversion reflected a whole-of-government approach…
“Equally, it’s only possible to understand the perfidy of Trump’s behavior to know the full story of all the people, especially inside government, who tried to dissuade Trump from contesting the election results and urged him to seek to restore order after insurrectionists breached the Capitol…
“The original indictment was able to provide the unexpurgated version of how Trump sought to enlist private actors and government officials to help him remain in power — how he sought to misuse the authority of the Justice Department ‘to conduct sham election fraud investigations’ and promote fraudulent electors, and then pressured Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the election results. The new indictment abandons [these] allegations.”
Ruth Marcus, Washington Post
“Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion found that all presidents, including Trump, have absolute immunity from criminal charges for exercising their ‘core Constitutional duties.’ Roberts specifically cited Trump’s communications with the Justice Department — in which he tried to force the DOJ to back his false election claims — as off-limits for prosecution…
“Smith has complied accordingly, deleting the entirety of the DOJ evidence from the indictment’s narrative, along with any references to Justice Department officials pushing back on his lies about mass voter fraud… Also gone are any references to the White House counsel and most references to any conversations Trump might have had with people on his staff within the executive branch.”
Hayes Brown, MSNBC
“The original indictment referenced multiple communications with federal officials like then-Vice-President Mike Pence, DOJ, the Director of National Intelligence and White House attorneys in which Trump was told his claims of the election being stolen were untrue. The new indictment removes all of those and simply asserts that Trump was ‘on notice that his claims were untrue.’…
“The new indictment also takes pains to assert that Trump ‘had no official responsibilities related to state certification of election results’ and also distinguishes between when Trump was acting allegedly ‘not as President but in his capacity as a candidate for office.’…
“If all this strikes you as being like a version of Wordle, where the prosecutors are not allowed to use certain words like ‘DOJ’ or ‘president,’ you wouldn’t be alone. Smith’s re-tooling of his indictment really points up the absurdity of a SCOTUS opinion which teaches presidents to make sure they tell the DOJ about their intentions to commit crimes–or even enlist DOJ’s aide–so that their actions will be immunized from any prosecution.”
Shan Wu, Daily Beast
The right is critical of Smith, arguing that the indictment conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The right is critical of Smith, arguing that the indictment conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“The prosecutor’s patent conceit is that Trump’s presidential acts as charged — in particular, his communications with Pence and with state legislators and officials — are at best only arguably official. Ergo, Smith’s reasoning goes, any presumption of immunity can be overcome by evidence that these acts principally served Trump’s interests as a candidate and not his duties as president…
“To the contrary, the Court majority (sans Barrett) approached the matter from the opposite direction. Roberts made clear that the Court’s default position was that official acts of the presidency are immune… [Moreover] prosecutors may not examine a president’s motives for performing official acts. If an action is ostensibly official, presumptive immunity cannot be overcome by claiming that a president had a corrupt purpose in taking it…
“Presidents always have legitimate reasons to consult with vice presidents… [And] there is a federal law-enforcement interest in ensuring that elections in the states are lawfully conducted. Consequently, presidents — even if they are candidates — have legitimate presidential reasons to consult with state legislators and election officials regarding possible election fraud… Even if Smith can convince the Obama-appointed, Trump-hostile Chutkan of [his] theory, it strikes me as defiant of the Court’s majority opinion in Trump.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
“The reality is that the immediate fate of this case is in the hands of the voting public in November. Mr. Smith knows this. If Mr. Trump loses the election, the special counsel will have all the time in the world to make his case under President Kamala Harris. Ms. Harris could follow Gerald Ford’s example of pardoning Richard Nixon after Watergate, as a way of putting an ugly episode firmly into the past. This would be best for the country…
“But if Mr. Trump wins and returns to the White House on Jan. 20, 2025, the federal cases against him will no doubt be dismissed by the next Attorney General. Is Mr. Smith hoping to prevent that outcome by slamming this superseding indictment on the table barely two months before Election Day? In any case, the more that the special counsel tries to race the clock, the more it bolsters Mr. Trump’s argument that politics is what’s really motivating him. Lawfare is still at work.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“Smith has without doubt violated an explicit DOJ guideline that says, ‘Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.’… Look at the news coverage. Look at the calendar. The Trump prosecutions are a huge part of the election, and many Democrats wouldn’t have it any other way.”
Byron York, Washington Examiner
