XPost: law.court.federal, alt.politics.republicans, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh XPost: talk.politics.guns, sac.politics

The Supreme Court could pour cold water on the federal election
interference case against former President Donald Trump before it even
goes to trial if the justices decide to rule in his favor on his immunity claim.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, asked the
Supreme Court on Monday to immediately step in and rule on whether Trump
is immune from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while
in office—an extraordinary request that would ask the court to weigh in on
the unprecedented prosecution of a former president.

The Supreme Court decides which cases it hears, so it would not be
required to do so. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has already ruled that
Trump is not immune from the prosecution, and Smith is asking the court to
take up the claim by skipping a federal appeals court and ruling once and
for all, in hopes of keeping the trial on track for its March start date.

But if the court does take up the matter at Smith's request, there is a
chance it could side with Trump and grant his immunity—a ruling that would
kill Smith's hopes of bringing the case to trial at all.

"An adverse ruling on the immunity issue would essentially end Smith's
case against Trump," former federal prosecutor and elected state attorney Michael McAuliffe told Newsweek.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani agreed, telling Newsweek that if
the Supreme Court establishes that Trump has presidential immunity, the
former president cannot be charged by Smith.

Legal analyst Harry Litman explained on X, formerly Twitter, that there
are three ways the Supreme Court could approach Smith's request: they
could deny taking it up, agree to take it up and rule against Trump, or
agree to take it up and rule in favor of Trump. If one of the first two
options takes place, the court would pave the way for the trial to begin
in four months. But if the court chooses the third option and ends up
siding with Trump, "that's the end of the case."

Calling such a scenario "as cataclysmic as Bush v Gore," Litman called the Supreme Court's decision on immunity "now the main event." When the
Supreme Court decided the controversial case of Bush v Gore in 2000, it
settled the recount dispute in Florida and effectively handed George W.
Bush the presidency.

McAuliffe said Smith's latest actions show that he is confident he's
correct, and indicate he is neither afraid nor hesitant to have the
Supreme Court weigh in and bring finality to the issue as soon as
possible.

"It's the smart move given what's at stake," McAuliffe said, adding that
should no immunity exist for Trump, a trial will proceed before the 2024 election.

Prosecutors have urged the courts to ensure that a trial takes place
before the next election, during which Trump, who is the current GOP frontrunner, could win back the White House. Trump has already signaled
that if he is elected, he would toss any federal case against him and seek revenge on his political rivals, including Smith.

"Justice delayed in the Trump criminal cases is the definition of justice denied, given Trump's stated intentions," McAuliffe said.

https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-could-kill-jack-smith-case-1851435

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)