A lot has happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the release.
I didn’t see this one coming. Yesterday’s morning memo focused on the risk of delaying the March 2024 trial date in the Jan. 6 case against Donald Trump, and especially suggested Jack Smith’s fight to prevent that from happening. But within hours, Smith had fired off a new all-out barrage. in an attempt to delay the trial date, in opposition to Trump’s tenacious efforts to delay the case, run out of time, be re-elected to a split-second term, and use the powers of the presidency. To him.
Jack Smith’s gambit to speed things up was to ask the Supreme Court to take up immediately Trump’s outrageous claim that he is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for acts undertaken while president (and additionally that his acquittal by the Senate in his second impeachment makes any subsequent prosecution a violation of the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause).
Trump lost that argument in district court, where Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed it as unprecedented, ahistorical, atextual and illogical. Trump appealed his ruling to the Washington Circuit Court of Appeals last week. But Smith doesn’t need to wait for the moment — it would take the appeals court to hear arguments and issue a ruling, and then for the case to go to the Supreme Court.
Citing U.S. v. Nixon, which is a strong legal and historical precedent, Smith wants to go straight to the Supreme Court now, saving time and seeking a definitive resolution to this line of attack on the prosecution from Trump.
A reminder of the fundamental design of the federal judicial system:
SUPREME COURT
|
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
|
DISTRICT COURT
Smith is taking a two-pronged approach: He’s asking the Washington Circuit Court of Appeals to expedite Trump’s appeal, while also seeking to bypass the appeals court and go straight to the Supreme Court.
Smith asked the Supreme Court to expedite his request to take up the case, and temporarily (a modestly clever signal) granted Smith’s request for an expedited review on whether he should take the case into his own hands, giving Trump a deadline of Dec. 1. 20 to respond through the four a. m. p. m. ET. To be clear, it hastens the examination of the advisability of taking case fee; He refused to accept it.
Meanwhile, the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals It is proposed to contemplate Smith’s move to expedite Trump’s appeal to him: Trump’s reaction is expected until 10 a. m. ET on Wednesday, and Smith’s reaction is expected until 10 a. m. ET on Thursday.
We learned that the appeals court that will hear Trump’s appeal will be composed of judges J. Michelle Childs (Biden), Florence Y. Pan (Biden) and Karen LeCraft Henderson (Bush I).
Smith’s gambit sets up an enormously consequential decision by Supreme Court on matters of the greatest importance to the rule of law and, I don’t think this is an exaggeration, fundamental to our system of government: Is the president somehow above the law, unable to be prosecuted while in office and immune from prosecution after he leaves office?
I invite you to read Smith’s brief to the Supreme Court (don’t be put off by the number of pages; it’s only 14 pages long once the appendices are removed). It’s an excursion of force of argumentation and legal persuasion and ancient (so well written that I had to fast forward to the signature block to see who wrote it, and I was surprised to see that Michael Dreeben is now running with Smith).
The only correct answer from a legal standpoint is that Trump, like each and every president, is not above the law and is not immune from prosecution, but that it’s not just the substance that’s being discussed here: it’s also the timing. .
The Supreme Court has several here, including:
Obviously, if the Supreme Court declares that Trump has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, the U. S. is setting itself up for total global suffering.
But I’m hoping that you can see by me laying out the options before it, that the Supreme Court’s six-justice conservative majority has plenty of opportunity here to rule correctly but use the timing of its decision to wreak havoc on the prosecution and delay the trial past March and conceivably past the 2024 election.
So while I am tempted to dive deep into the historical and legal arguments Smith is making, because they are fascinating and rich with consequence, the timing element here is just as crucial and creates plenty of opportunity for SCOTUS mischief.
The United States acknowledges that this is an ordinary request. This is a common case.
A new case filed through Jack Smith in the Jan. 6 case about the expert witnesses he plans to call to trial contained an initial look at some of the prosecution’s evidence. One of the expert witnesses gained knowledge of Trump’s mobile phones at the White House and, among “Other Things,” identified the periods when the defendant’s phone was unlocked and the Twitter app open on Jan. 6.
A jury was assembled and opening statements were heard on the first day of Rudy Guiliani’s defamation trial through Georgia election officials Ruthrough Freeman and Shaye Moss. But perhaps all you want to know is that Giuliani repeated his lies about them outside the courthouse toward the end of the day, prompting the plaintiffs to file a late-night case:
The infuriating case of Kate Cox, a 31-year-old Dallas woman whose pregnancy was not viable and who sought an abortion within the narrow exceptions to the state’s abortion ban, culminated in a rough conclusion:
In its decision, the Texas Supreme Court made gestures to explain that exceptions to abortion are not unworkable or overly oppressive, despite the facts and cases in this case that obviously show otherwise.
The president’s son and his reconstituted legal team filed a slew of new motions to dismiss the federal gun charges against him currently pending in Delaware:
Look, most of those motions are expandable at best, but you may need to read the first one indexed above, because while it very much matches Hunter Biden’s view, the story he tells provides an obligatory reminder of how the underlying research came about at the time. At a time when President Trump was already attacking Hunter Biden, taking inventory of the astonishing conduct of congressional Republicans and juxtaposing his public crusade of tension against special counsel David Weiss with his ever-evolving prosecution decisions.
Of the motions to dismiss, the one that has force is the moment mentioned above, in which Biden plausibly argues that the diversion agreement he signed in the first place for gun-related fees is binding, doesn’t want court approval, and can’t be reneged on now through Weiss.
Indicted former U. S. Rep. George Santos (R-N. Y. ) is in negotiations with prosecutors over a plea deal for the multiple charges against him, according to a new document released Monday. Santos said it in an interview that aired over the weekend, but it’s George Santos, so. . . Further confirmation is warranted:
Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!
A lot has happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Register for the. . .
A lot has happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s morning memo. Sign up for. . .
A lot has happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Register for the. . .
A lot has happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Register for the. . .