Jack Smith has made a request to the Supreme Court for expeditious decision on key aspects of his case against President Donald Trump. If granted, this may delay a trial in Washington that is currently scheduled for March.
The high court announced its willingness to consider Smith’s request by ordering his attorneys to respond by Dec. 20.
Judge Chutkan Rejects Smith’s Request to Force Trump to Reveal Key Strike
Special Counsel Jack Smith made a request that was denied without prejudice by a federal judge to force President Trump to reveal his defense strategy in the classified documents case, which could force him to waive attorney-client privilege and slow down its resolution significantly. Smith claimed there is “imperative public interest” in swiftly concluding the matter, so any legal fight over whether or not Trump can invoke executive privilege will delay trial proceedings and cause unnecessary delays.
Harvard law school graduate Smith does not adhere to either party and began his career at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office under Robert Morgenthau’s legendary mob-busting prosecution style in 1994. Since November he has led investigations against President Trump, and his decision to use documents taken from Mar-a-Lago as part of their probe represents a huge victory for prosecutors.
Walker’s ruling
Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling marks another turn in the long-running debate about whether President Donald Trump will invoke executive privilege. Last month, another federal judge, Mark Walker, found that Trump is not protected by executive privilege against congressional committee investigations into Russian election interference; Walker’s ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Circuit.
Chutkan’s ruling comes as a disappointment to Smith, who had hoped the Supreme Court would bypass the appeals court and hear his case quickly. Smith cited how they did this during Watergate-era debate over President Richard Nixon’s claims of executive privilege in a subpoena battle with Congress.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Smith’s request did not serve the public interest, and rather appeared designed solely to serve a political goal — to subject their client to an exhaustive criminal trial just at a time when he is up for reelection as president.
Trump made it a central theme of his campaign to criticize Smith and other prosecutors involved in cases against him, portraying himself as the victim of politicized justice. He has raised similar claims in legal challenges against his presidency, asserting that the legal proceedings against him amount to a political witch hunt by prosecutors designed to stop him from winning the 2024 Republican presidential nomination and depriving him of fulfilling his plans to restore American greatness by dismantling bureaucracy within the Democratic Party. But Trump still has time to win his wager that no one can investigate him due to presidential powers. His arguments are becoming more sophisticated as he continues his defense of himself as president against prosecution for wrongdoings that occur under his watch. If the justices were to agree with him, this could have significant ramifications for our constitutional system of checks and balances, so they must carefully consider his request before making a decision on their next move in this case by December 20th.
To know more about recent developments, visit our Alts news website. Thankyou!
- Friday Intraday Trading Sees Nvidia’s stock Market Cap Momentarily Cross $2 Trillion
- Trump’s January 6 Civil Cases Proceed While Criminal Case Is Halted
- Trump Delivers Speech at the Columbia Black Conservative Federation Gala
- Trump Declares Strong Support for IVF Following Alabama Supreme Court Decision
- Schumer in Ukraine Declares US Backing During House Aid Standoff
