The corruption of our legal system by progressives continues as Special Counsel Jack Smith is filing a superseding indictment against former President Donald Trump which accuses him of resisting the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential race, despite rulings from the Supreme Court that said he has immunity for actions done while serving in the White House. The list of allegations has been narrowed by Smith in light of said ruling.
If you don’t think this is politically motivated, you’ve either got your head buried in the sand or you’re on board with the weaponization of the Justice Department against the enemies of the radical left. Clearly, Smith is working for progressives who are desperate to completely destroy Trump and his chances of taking back the White House. Why? Because he impedes the implementation of their wacky agenda to try and perfect humanity and create a utopian society.
In other words, radicals like Smith, Biden, and Harris, are deluded into thinking they can do God’s job better than he can. And we all thought the people wearing cat ears and pooping in litter boxes were crazy. Believe it or not, the left-wing “elites” are even more out of their gourd.
via CBS News:
The new charging document is based on a more refined set of allegedly criminal acts after the Supreme Court ruled Trump was immune from prosecution for some of the conduct included in Smith’s original 2023 indictment.
Prosecutors maintained the four counts against Trump that he previously faced — including conspiracy to defraud the United States — but limited the evidence included in the indictment and even removed one unnamed individual from a list of unindicted co-conspirators. The original indictment described that person as a “a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who, with the defendant, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.” It was believed to be Jeffrey Clark, who led the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and later served as acting head of the Civil Division.
Smith and his team said a federal grand jury in Washington returned the superseding indictment Tuesday. Prosecutors said they did not oppose waiving Trump’s appearance at an arraignment on the new charging document. Again detailing alleged acts like organizing fake slates of presidential electors or working with his private attorneys on a legal strategy to subvert the transfer of power, Smith accused the former president of using his role as a candidate for office — not as president of the United States — to overturn the election results.
This new indictment has been made in response to the decision handed down by the Supreme Court where the conservative majority ruled that current presidents and former commander-in-chiefs were immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts” while they were in office. Some of the special counsel’s original accusations against the former president, such as the conversations he had with the Department of Justice following the 2020 election, were disqualified.
Roberts divided presidential conduct into three categories: official acts that are part of presidents’ “core constitutional powers;” other official acts that fall outside their “exclusive authority;” and unofficial acts. Presidents have “absolute” immunity for the first category; “presumptive” immunity for the second, which can be rebutted by the government; and no immunity for the third. In applying that legal test, the high court ruled the charges against Trump could not be tied to conduct related to his official responsibilities as president. Other alleged conduct contained in charging documents — including Trump’s interactions with then-Vice President Mike Pence ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, certification of Electoral College votes by Congress — is a closer call, according to the Supreme Court. Other conduct tied to campaigning is likely fair game for prosecution, the court said.
In the concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, stated she feels Trump’s alleged attempts to get “false slates of electors” is a private matter and is thus not covered under the protection of immunity. Well, good thing the rest of the conservatives on the bench understand the Constitution on this matter better than she does.
The high court tasked the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, with parsing Smith’s indictment to determine which alleged acts were “official” and “unofficial.” Lawyers for Trump conceded during arguments before the justices in April that some of the acts contained in the indictment entailed “private” conduct that could not be shielded from criminal charges, such as those involving outside lawyers who helped execute the scheme to submit fraudulent slates of electors. After the mandate returned to her court following the Supreme Court’s decision, Chutkan asked prosecutors to file a brief outlining their arguments for a path forward in the case by August 30. A hearing in the case is set for September 5.
The indictment from Smith also repeats allegations that Trump tried to get Pence on obard with his so-called “scheme,” however, it goes on to clarify that prosecutors see Pence not as Trump’s vice president, but as his running mate.
"*" indicates required fields