Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
THE TRUMP CASES: Supreme Court's Trump immunity ruling shows risk of Jack Smith's approach
THE TRUMP CASES
Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling shows risk of Jack Smith’s approach
The conservative high court often disapproves of how the Justice Department charges public corruption. Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 case was no exception.
By Devlin Barrett
July 9, 2024 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
The Supreme Court decision on former president Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity has put new limits on future prosecutors — constraints that legal experts see as the latest and most consequential result of a long-running disagreement between conservative justices and the Justice Department over how to investigate public corruption.
The ruling leaves some conservative lawyers questioning special counsel Jack Smith’s decision last year to indict Trump for a range of actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Those charges ultimately led to a Supreme Court ruling weakening not just Smith’s authority but that of future special counsels who investigate presidents.
The high court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines last week that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts,” while adding that they may still be prosecuted for unofficial acts. The ruling did not offer a clear line between the two, and the justices may have to settle further disputes about that — including in Trump’s four criminal cases.
{snip}
By Devlin Barrett
Devlin Barrett writes about the FBI and the Justice Department, and is the author of "October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election." He was part of reporting teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 and 2022. In 2017 he was a co-finalist for the Pulitzer for Feature Writing and the Pulitzer for International Reporting. Twitter https://twitter.com/DevlinBarrett
Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling shows risk of Jack Smith’s approach
The conservative high court often disapproves of how the Justice Department charges public corruption. Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 case was no exception.
By Devlin Barrett
July 9, 2024 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
The Supreme Court decision on former president Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity has put new limits on future prosecutors — constraints that legal experts see as the latest and most consequential result of a long-running disagreement between conservative justices and the Justice Department over how to investigate public corruption.
The ruling leaves some conservative lawyers questioning special counsel Jack Smith’s decision last year to indict Trump for a range of actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Those charges ultimately led to a Supreme Court ruling weakening not just Smith’s authority but that of future special counsels who investigate presidents.
The high court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines last week that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts,” while adding that they may still be prosecuted for unofficial acts. The ruling did not offer a clear line between the two, and the justices may have to settle further disputes about that — including in Trump’s four criminal cases.
{snip}
By Devlin Barrett
Devlin Barrett writes about the FBI and the Justice Department, and is the author of "October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election." He was part of reporting teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 and 2022. In 2017 he was a co-finalist for the Pulitzer for Feature Writing and the Pulitzer for International Reporting. Twitter https://twitter.com/DevlinBarrett
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
