Trump lawyers' Supreme Court brief 'damaged' by his own input: former prosecutor – Raw Story
Tom Boggioni is a writer, born, raised and living in San Diego — where he attended San Diego State University. Prior to writing for Raw Story, he wrote for FireDogLake, blogged as TBogg, and worked in banking, marketing and construction.
A filing submitted by Donald Trump's lawyers imploring the Supreme Court to delay ruling on whether he was covered by presidential immunity while committing alleged crimes was dismantled by a former U.S. Attorney who said it seemed to have been dictated by the former president in a way that damages its credibility.
On her Substack platform, ex-U-S. Attorney Joyce Vance agreed that the arguments proposed by the former president's lawyers are not "frivolous" ones, but their brief contains an assortment of arguments that lack the seriousness expected in a filing submitted to the nation's highest court.
With special counsel Jack Smith pushing the court to expedite a hearing that would allow U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Tanya Chutkan to maintain her trial schedule, the former president would rather they take their time and kick the can down the road past the 2024 presidential election.
According to Vance, "… ultimately, the cuteness and the conclusory suggestion that the 'Special Counsel identifies no compelling reason for haste' when the defendant, a potential presidential candidate, is the party who has filed these motions and asked for the indictment against him to be dismissed, falls flat."
Taking up a Trump legal team claim that "in 234 years of American history, no President ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts,” the former prosecutor shot back, "That, of course, is not a fair criticism of the prosecution. It simply reflects that Trump is the first president in those 234 years to try to interfere with the transfer of power following an election. It’s not the point in Trump’s favor that his lawyers seem to think it is."
"The tone of Trump’s brief is far more snide that what you typically see in appellate argument, and probably far less combative than what Trump would have liked, particularly when they argue that the prosecution is a political attack," she continued before concluding, "Letting the client dictate the arguments that make it into a brief can damage the arguments overall credibility, and there’s some sense that happens here."
You can read more here.
Special counsel Jack Smith responded on Thursday after Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to reject a petition to decide if he has presidential immunity from prosecution.
In a filing, Smith explained why he was taking the unusual step of asking to bypass the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this Court," Smith wrote. "The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves — for the first time in our Nation's history — criminal charges against a former President based on his actions while in office."
"And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election," he added.
Smith insisted, "The Nation has a compelling interest in a decision on respondent's claim of immunity from these charges—and if they are to be tried, a resolution by conviction or acquittal, without undue delay."
ALSO READ: Let fear be your greatest motivator in 2024
Attorneys for Trump have argued that there was no "rush" to bypass the appeals court.
"The Special Counsel urges this Court to bypass those ordinary procedures, including the longstanding preference for prior consideration by at least one court of appeals, and rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon," Trump's filing said.
D.C. federal district court Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled earlier this month that Trump does not have immunity from election subversion charges. After Trump appealed, Chutkan put the trial on hold.
Republican Party organizations in Georgia are trying to impose purity tests to determine which candidates can run on the ballot with an "R" behind their name.
GOP committees in deep-red Chattooga and Pickens counties have adopted so-called "accountability" measures that allow party leaders to determine which candidates for county office are eligible to run as Republicans, reported the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“Should we be forced to accept a candidate who claims to be Republican but supports abortion, gun control, big government and high taxes?” said Chattooga County GOP chair Jennifer Tudor. “Deceptive politicians should not be allowed to take advantage of poor, low information voters.”
The hard-right Georgia Republican Assembly, which has attacked Gov. Brian Kemp and other officials who refused to help Donald Trump overturn his 2020 election loss, tried to force a vote at the state GOP convention earlier this year to give the state party's delegates the authority to decide who can run under the party's banner in top races, but that measure failed.
ALSO READ: Let fear be your greatest motivator in 2024
“I believe in the power of the ballot box," said Debbie Dooley, a former Tea Party leader and Trump loyalist. "I believe that GOP primary voters should decide who they want as their nominee. A small group of activists shouldn’t decide it.”
Some of the most intense opposition to the statewide initiative came from Trump loyalists who feared moderate Republicans might regain control of the party's infrastructure and shut them out, and critics of the county-level measures say they're intended to stifle competition.
“I’m about as conservative as they get,” said Andy Allen, who filed paperwork to challenge Chattoga County commissioner Blake Elsberry hours before the measure was adopted. “This isn’t about that. They’re trying to infringe on voters’ rights. They just want to protect incumbents.”
A law often touted by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis that restricts the kinds of books that can be available in public schools has led teachers in the state's Orange County to remove hundreds of books from their shelves — including some that are widely considered literary classics.
The Orlando Sentinel has compiled a list of all 673 books pulled from the shelves in the county, and it shows that Florida's law resulted in the removal of books that go well beyond often-targeted titles such as "Gender Queer" by author Maia Kobabe.
Below are ten pieces of classical literature that you will no longer find in school libraries in Orange County.
1.) Paradise Lost by John Milton.
Although published all the way back in 1667, John Milton's epic poem about Satan, Adam and Eve is apparently still too risqué for Gov. DeSantis and his allies in the Florida state legislature.
2.) Catch-22 by Joseph Heller.
An epic satire of the American military set during the closing months of World War II.
3.) Swann's Way by Marcel Proust.
This infamously dense French prose does not seem like a likely destination for innocent young minds to seek titillation.
4.) Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy.
This tragic 19th century portrayal of working-class life in England is considered a Hardy masterpiece, but has nonetheless run afoul of Florida's censors.
5.) The House of Bernarda Alba by Federico García Lorca.
The great Spanish playwright was assassinated by Spanish in 1936 by fascists, who apparently still target his work for censorship even to this day.
6.) The Quiet American by Graham Greene.
A prophetic novella that warned about the growing dangers of American involvement in Vietnam back in the 1950s.
7.) Beloved by Toni Morrison.
A Pulitzer Prize-winning masterpiece of Black American literature, Morrison's tale of slavery in pre-Civil War America has not escaped the watchful eyes of Florida's book banners.
8.) The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark.
A cautionary tale about what can happen when a teacher gets a little too enthusiastic about the glories of fascist dictators.
9.) East of Eden by John Steinbeck.
Being an American classic loaded with allusions to the Bible apparently isn't enough to pass muster with some conservative Christian literary critics.
10.) Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.
Huxley's dystopian tale of a society that genetically engineers itself to the point of mindlessness has no place in Orange County classrooms.
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | Manage Preferences | Debug Logs
For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.