The United States Supreme Court took on Donald Trump’s case in which he asserted he had total immunity for all acts as president in 2020. They issued a ruling that met him halfway. Indeed the Court would give Trump immunity on all presidential acts – with a strong presumption that he did act in the normal course of presidential business – but prosecutors would have a chance to put forth evidence that must prove that Trump was not carrying out normal presidential duties in the alleged acts. Jack Smith followed the SCOTUS’s ruling and gathered 180 pages of evidence and argument obtained through their investigation. The evidence is before Judge Tanya Chutkan who has not ruled on the question of presidential duty. But late Thursday she decided to release the files near immediately, scheduled sometime today.
The SCOTUS mandated the actual process. Trouble arises because neither courts nor prosecutors tend to take substantial steps in a criminal case against candidates just prior to an election. But the law also presumes that the public can scrutinize alleged criminal acts. No matter how Judge Chutkan handled the matter, one party would wail that the ruling results in its extreme detriment. Chutkan ignored the political context and went forward with anticipated release of the evidence for needed public scrutiny. As said above, the court scheduled its release. It just happens to be in the pressure cooker existing today.
As Politico reports:
In a five-page ruling, Chutkan rejected Trump’s argument that releasing the potentially explosive material constitutes election interference.
In fact, she said, suppressing the evidence — which would typically be released as part of public court proceedings – would be the actual political meddling. She said she plans to release the filing at an unspecified time on Friday.
True. And yet had she ruled that the evidence be withheld until after the election it would be just as obvious to some that the ruling was unfair in that it would keep critical evidence away from a public which must have that evidence to make an informed vote. Either way, it was guaranteed to put half the country in a fury as is all too typical in this election.
But Chutkan is following precedent. James Comey chose to release new emails obtained in the investigation of Hillary Clinton just days before the 2016 election – a decision that might well have sealed Donald Trump’s victory. Yes, it was an FBI decision – not a court’s – but the exact same public policy questions existed then as now. This time it may seal Donald Trump’s defeat – or it may have no effect.
Things have drastically changed with respect to how elections are carried out and certified. We don’t yet know the impact.
There is a strong argument that unlike Hillary’s emails, this evidence actually goes to how Trump carries out duties, presidential or personal. The emails were more tangential, going to Clinton’s overall character. Comey believed that release was actually the most hands-off approach because he would not “hide” new evidence. This time the hands-off approach results in release of more direct evidence demonstrating Trump’s presidential acts and his character. Hillary was just as angry, the public was just as informed.
It may not matter at all.
It is entirely possible that a majority of Americans in swing states simply don’t care. Indeed, it’s probably more likely. It near certainly sunk Hillary. But a key difference exists in that electorate’s 50-50 disposition puts both halves of the nation in a near-war between entrenched camps. Each believes the other represents a direct threat to the country.
Thus Chutkan probably had the easier choice. New evidence or not, the context is set, the parties are set, reality is set, and this time voters know that evidence is irrelevant when compared to the ultimate outcome. Yes, both camps desperately want that win at the ballot box. But it is not necessarily definitive. Not now. Not with Congress – maybe even others – set to act.
So look for the evidence’s release today. Just don’t look for a big impact. The real evidence is in and has been for years. Look for the result of the bigger, contextual evidence, to impact the rest of the year, perhaps the rest of decade… or more.
God Bless:Â I can be reached at [email protected] and @JasonMiciak
Trump has only HIMSELF to blame for any whining that the Judge’s actions constitute “election interference” because he insisted on CONSTANTLY delaying the case. Any time a ruling could’ve been made to set a date and begin the trial, Trump and his lawyers would find some excuse to get a delay. And they wanted to delay the trial(s) for no other reason than to try to get Trump back into the White House where he could get a lackey to sweep all the problems away.
I urge you all to read Judge Chutkan’s ruling on this. It is ONLY five pages.
Here it is: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.265.0_3.pdf
Awesome. TY
When SCOTUS made its ruling it remanded the case back to Chutkan with instructions to proceed to motions on what, if any charges could still go to trial. They could suggested more delay but if I’m not mistaken there was instead an aside to simply proceeding as normal. And normal includes the speedy trial statute. Trump is getting the same treatment, at least on this score as any other defendant would get. Things proceed on the JUDGE’S schedule unless either the prosecution or the defense can provide a compelling LEGAL reason for delay. Political considerations don’t factor in any more than some important board meeting or impending major merger for some corporate head don’t come into play. Trump long ago used up any actual, real legal reasons for delay and then being Trump ABUSED the system.
He’s used up all his cards and he’s in front of a regular federal judge who knows how to run her court and calendar and while she’s got a background as a defense lawyer and takes that side seriously she also knows all the games. If Trump tries to spread bullshit in her court she’ll simply and directly order him to stop – and clean up his own mess.
The only ones who can restore respect for the law are the judges. Otherwise it’s a lost cause.
On the other hand, some of the swing states have been decided by precious few votes. So, if this release sways a few thousand, and eating dogs and cates sways a gfew thousand, and swaying to music for 40 minutes sways a few thousand, and claiming 1/6 was a day of love sways a few thousand…it just might tilt an election. Or add to what I expect to be a landslide for Kamala to the point that all the protests and lawsuits in the world won’t amount to a hill of beans.