GrassRoots50

Breaking News Stories

Jack Smith’s charges against Trump wouldn’t hold up at the Supreme Court, legal experts say

  • Legal experts point to past rulings in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of former President Donald Trump and problems with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, indictment against him won’t stand up to Supreme Court review claimed.
  • Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor emeritus, told Fox News on Wednesday, “He may lose in the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but he’ll probably win if he gets reconsideration in the Supreme Court.” Told.
  • Judge Tanya Chutkan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is overseeing the case, and Cornell Law School Professor William A. to “is not expected.

Legal experts say the charges filed by special counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump are unlikely to pass in the Supreme Court.

President Trump on Thursday pleaded not guilty in Washington, D.C., to four charges indicted in connection with the 2020 election. Legal experts said the charges filed by Smith would not stand up under Supreme Court review, pointing to the court’s previous rulings and the First Amendment’s flaws. prosecution.

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor emeritus, said, “He may lose in the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but he’ll probably win if he’s allowed a new trial in the Supreme Court.” Said on FOX News on Wednesday. “And they should allow scrutiny. When the president of the United States people runs after an opponent in a political election, it must be blameless. It must be fine. The strongest case in history.” I bet it doesn’t meet this standard.”

In an op-ed for the Daily Caller News Foundation, Dershowitz wrote that while a biased jury could ignore the First Amendment, the Supreme Court “prefers the First Amendment and violates the Constitution.” I will revoke the conviction.” (Related: Trump indictment cites agency that helped 2020 election censorship efforts as “best placed” to know the facts)

WASHINGTON, DC – JULY 8: A man cuts grass with a riding lawnmower in front of the United States Supreme Court on July 8, 2020 in Washington, DC. In a win for both sides of religious groups, the court ruled Wednesday in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, stating that employers who express religious dissent will receive birth control compensation under the Affordable Care Act. made a judgment that it could refuse to provide In addition, the court ruled in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey Vera that the Federal Employment Discrimination Act does not apply to teachers whose job it is to teach religion at church-run schools. (Photo Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Former federal prosecutor and Missouri Attorney General candidate Will Scharf said, “I don’t think any of these charges can be fairly proven beyond reasonable doubt before an impartial judge and jury. ‘ said. tweeted Wednesday. “Furthermore, if this case goes to the Supreme Court, as it unanimously ruled in the prosecution of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, the courts will find Mr. Smith guilty of all or at least some of these charges. I expect they will dismiss the liability theory.”

Some say special counsel Jack Smith’s accusations have been hampered by previous Supreme Court decisions.

Former New York federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy said the fraud alleged in the indictment “does not merit litigation, as the Supreme Court recently said in May.” Said on FOX News on Wednesday.

Trump was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, one count of conspiracy to obstruct process, one count of conspiracy against rights, and one count of obstruction and attempted obstruction of process, according to the indictment.

“The Supreme Court has made it clear that fraud under federal law is a plan to defraud someone of money or physical property,” McCarthy told the media outlet.

Jonathan Turley too I got it USA Today op-ed on Wednesday that a “series of Supreme Court cases” would alleviate the charges.

“In the 2012 U.S. v. Alvarez decision, the Supreme Court ruled by a 6 to 3 vote that criminalizing lying in a lawsuit involving a politician who lied about military medals is unconstitutional.” wrote Turley.

court decision A 2012 ruling said that criminalizing the speech “provides the government with broad censorship powers unprecedented in this Court’s litigation and in our constitutional tradition.”

Smith also received a conviction secured against former Republican Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on corruption charges. got thrown In 2016, the Supreme Court won 8-0.

District of Columbia Judge Tanya Chutkan, who works for the law firm that once employed Hunter Biden, is overseeing the Trump case.

Cornell Law School Professor William A. Jacobson told the DCNF that the Supreme Court’s involvement is not expected “anytime soon.”

“It is unusual for the Supreme Court to be involved in the details and procedures of an ongoing criminal case,” he said. “Generally, if the Supreme Court is involved, it is only after a conviction and the normal appeals process.”

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, non-partisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers capable of serving large audiences. All reissues must include our company logo, press byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Share this post:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply