Oh, Jack Smith, you’re not having a good week, are you? The Supreme Court just handed you a double whammy, which couldn’t have come at a worse time. Recently, they ruled that presidents enjoy limited immunity for official actions, and by Friday, they sided with a Jan. 6 defendant. Both decisions throw a wrench in your case against former President Trump. Ouch!
Jack Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 to investigate Trump’s involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and any interference in the 2020 election. But now, thanks to the Supreme Court, Smith’s legal battles look like a sinking ship. The court’s ruling on presidential immunity and the Jan. 6 case considerably reduced Smith’s efforts.
Smith’s legal troubles don’t end there. Remember, this is the same guy who charged Trump with a slew of conspiracies, from defrauding the United States to obstructing an official proceeding. He was gunning to get Trump tried before the 2024 election, but that’s looking less likely by the day. According to constitutional attorney John Shu, prosecutors like Smith tend to overcharge and pressure defendants into plea deals. But this time, the Supreme Court wasn’t having it.
Shu describes Smith as a hyper-aggressive prosecutor with a history of stretching the law to meet his goals. It’s no wonder Smith has been stepping on landmines lately. Even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took a jab at Smith’s appointment in the SCOTUS immunity case, underscoring the legal quagmire Smith has found himself in.
And let’s remember Smith’s past blunders. His high-profile loss in 2016, when the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell, comes to mind. The court criticized the boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute, highlighting the dangers of unchecked prosecutorial power.
Smith’s track record continues beyond there. In 2012, he lost the prosecution of John Edwards, a former senator and Democratic vice-presidential candidate, when jurors voted to acquit Edwards of several felony campaign finance violations. In 2017, he charged Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., with public corruption, leading to a mistrial.
Given these setbacks, one might wonder why Smith continues on this path. Shu suggests that Supreme Court precedent should have warned Smith against misusing obstruction provisions. However, Smith pushed forward, charging hundreds of defendants, including Trump, under these provisions. It’s a political mess, injecting toxic politics into criminal law prosecutions.
Despite all this, Smith remains silent, with no comment in response to these latest rulings. It’s clear he’s got a lot on his plate, and the future of his case against Trump is hanging by a thread. So, while Smith grapples with his legal battles, one can only sit back and watch this drama unfold. It’s going to be a wild ride to the 2024 election.
