Jack Smith Finds Chink in Donald Trump's Armor--His 'Private' Attorney

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Newsweek

Published Oct 08, 2024 at 5:05 AM EDT | Updated Oct 08, 2024 at 9:26 AM EDT


Donald Trump's use of a private attorney to communicate with Vice President Mike Pence may help to convict him, a former federal prosecutor has told Newsweek.

Neama Rahmani was reacting to the newly released evidence in the former president's election-fraud case, in which chief prosecutor Jack Smith said that Trump's use of a private attorney negates his presidential immunity. Smith added that the Republican nominee used a private attorney to pressure Pence into accepting Trump's claims that the 2020 election was rigged in Democrat Joe Biden's favor.

Trump was indicted in Washington, D.C., on four counts of allegedly working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. The Republican presidential nominee has pleaded not guilty and has said the case is part of a political witch hunt. Newsweek sought email comment from Trump's attorney on Tuesday.

As all vice presidents automatically become president of the Senate, Trump wanted Pence to use his Senate role to refuse to certify the 2020 election result. Smith said that, by using a private attorney to communicate with Pence, Trump cannot not claim presidential immunity.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jack-smith-mike-pence-evidence-2020-election-january-6-1965446

[JohnnyRingo]

1. That makes sense to me.

I'm not an attorney, and it's a loophole, but the logic carries great weight.
If it was an official act it would be handled by WH council.

[brush]

6. IMO even if he used the WH attorney, asking the VP to not certify...

the election results, as outlined in the Constitution, is still not an official act. It's not an official act as asking the VP to carry out a campaign act (attempting to stay in office and not transfer power) that's not Constitutional and therefore unofficial and thus illegal as hell and hardly covered by immunity.

[rampartd]

7. wasn'[t his defense in e jean carrol carried by barr's doj?

would that make her suit official business?

this entire "immunity" decision is bogus and literally ends the system of checks and balances of whicgh the founders seemed so proud.

[thesquanderer]

21. deleted post

[UpInArms]

2. Jack Smith is correct

The use of a private attorney and not the WH counsel is a blinding light between personal and official.

[PedroXimenez]

3. what do you say to that John Roberts?

we'll see...

[gab13by13]

5. Roberts already ignored the law by giving TSF immunity

what's one more violation?

[Martin68]

15. Roberts only gave Tump immunity for official actions. That's Smith's point: a president doesn't use a private lawyer for

official actions. That is the role of the White House Counsel.

[cilla4progress]

16. Is that in law or

in practice? Or both?

[Martin68]

18. Frankly, I don't know if it the law, but it is a powerful argument that Trump was trying to hide his action because

he knew it was illegal. Smith is putting together a hundred such points which should add up to very convincing evidence that his acts were don't official and that he knew they are illegal. By itself, it might not amount to enough to convict, but with a number of other such indicators it adds up to an excellent case.

[Captain Zero]

36. Congress could pass a law that negates that Supreme Court ruling?

Couldn't it?

As I understand Congress can pass a law to make Roe v. Wade the law,
so why not something around this?

[cstanleytech]

40. Both plus it's common sense and Trump's attorney should have known better.

[MadameButterfly]

27. We are arguing points of law but the question is

whether SCOTUS cares about the law. After the immunity ruling we should expect them to twist their arguments to match whatever they want to happen.

I keep hoping Trump does something that scares even the crazy 6 on SCOTUS so they don't want to install him in power. They may be too far gone, but one can hope. When do they figure out that under a dictatorship they have no power? Before or after the election?

[surfered]

4. It's what a stable genius would do.

[jaxexpat]

8. One man's legal absolute is another's line in the sand.

We'll see if Smith's interpretation is hld to be valid by the same court which determined Trump's "immunity" from smoke and attitude.

[Kid Berwyn]

9. The John Roberts Constitution

IOKIARDI

[BlueWavePsych]

10. Waiting patiently for ...

[COL Mustard]

31. Me too...but....

I'm not holding my breath.

[Tarzanrock]

11. Jack Smith is "right" on the law!

Jack Smith is "right" on the law! Bad fucking news for you, criminal Turd.

What the fuck is the purpose of the official, presidential "White House Counsel" if the criminal President refuses to use the "official" White House lawyers; and, then deliberately and knowingly goes around the "official" White House Counsel to then commit Felony election and Felony insurrection crimes by using his "private" personal attorneys to engage in such criminal conduct just like the criminal Turd did here? The Crime-Fraud exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege does not protect these criminal attorneys from the criminal activities which they engaged in with the Turd. There is no "immunity" for these crimes. Criminal conduct and criminal conspiracies to commit Felony crimes is not "official" conduct in any Court and even a disingensous, legal hypocrite like John Roberts well knows this to be true.

[BattleRow]

13. Kinda like being a little bit pregnant..

no abortion for you...lock him up.

[DallasNE]

19. Roberts Decision Has Problems

Roberts pointed out that the conversations Trump had where he ordered the Acting Attorney General to do something made it an official act and thus immune. This established who rather than what as the criteria for immunity. That makes no sense. That is what legalizes the President ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. Also, in the chain of command, Trump should have dealt with the Whitehouse Counsel rather than the Acting Attorney General for that purpose anyway. I think Smith saw that problem, so he went for a new set of indictments against Trump, just scrubbing up the earlier document to comply with the SCOTUS decision.

[moniss]

12. In a normal time with a more "normal" SC

I could expect any claim by the Orange Ruski to be thrown aside. But here we are. So it could be iffy. The other aspect that could negate the idea about the private attorney is that historically Presidents have often enlisted private citizens to assist in providing influence for official actions. So the act of using a private party itself may not necessarily be effective in determining whether an act was official or private.

[Martin68]

14. Excellent tactic. One doesn't use a "private" lawyer for official presidential functions. That is the function of the

White House Counsel.

[JustAnotherGen]

17. No way am I going to second guess

Mr. Smith's case and/or logic. I'd bet the fact that he responded as quickly as he did (relevant to the overall timeline between November 2020 and Today) - he expected and planned for SCOTUS shenanigans.

He knows what he's doing. Let's not second guess his approach.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Good to see a lawyer confirming the importance of this

and it getting more publicity than last week - see https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219528976

[Hekate]

22. This makes me smile

[Blue Owl]

23. C'mon Jack -- stick it to that fat felonous fuck

[Owens]

24. If it was an official act

Wouldn't official documentation be signed off by several people including the president and submitted to Congress as the official record?

[COL Mustard]

32. Oh, silly!

Laws are for little people!!!

[orthoclad]

37. The Reich Wing killed

hundreds of thousands of their truest fans with covid, just to have a wedge issue to exploit.

Do you think laws will stop them?

[calimary]

25. At this point, I'm so sick of trump that I only want two things:

1: I want him OVER, politically, and

2: I want him in JAIL. (Or PRISON, whichever comes first.)

[SWBTATTReg]

28. I agree w/ you. But, I doubt anything will ever happen to this disgusting POS. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised

one day, but that day is looking further and further off. Call me pessimistic, I guess. We have had so many ups and downs, that this will get tRUMP, or that will get tRUMP, and nothing happens. If anything, it goes to show that anyone w/ unlimited amounts of money can escape justice.

Maybe, just maybe one day, I'll finally be happy to see the prick get thrown in jail or at least house arrest as a minimum.

[calimary]

29. Yep. Boy do I ever get that.

I want him behind bars and in leg irons.

Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

[AdamGG]

26. Even if he wrote a letter on White House letterhead and had it embossed with the presidential seal

Telling the Vice President not to certify the results of a US election doesn't have jack fuck to do with official presidential duties. It's an illegal order and it would be illegal to follow it.

Fuck the SCOTUS for making people jump through these ridiculous hoops.

[Bristlecone]

33. Cautious optimism

[SupportSanity]

34. Jack Smith is certainly impressive. It's nice to be on offense.

[Orrex]

35. Can someone explain this to me?

Why would this negate immunity? I'm asking in terms of reality, not the ad hoc clown show that Republicans endlessly create for Trump.

Why does a private attorney invalidate the immunity claim?

[BumRushDaShow]

38. One of the things that John Roberts did

was to indicate that 45's communications with Department/agency personnel could be considered "protected". And that meant his communications with and attempts to get Jeffrey Clark appointed as "Acting AG", were part of "official duties". Because of that, Jack Smith revised the 45 indictment and removed Clark from it with a revised 45 indictment.

HOWEVER, the key here, like with Clark, had to do with Roberts indicating that communications with current federal staff are part of "official duties".

But when you start bringing in people like Ghouliani, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, etc., who were "personal lawyers", what they are directed to do shouldn't be considered part of any kind of "official duties".

I.e., when it comes to a President's "official lawyer", that would be the White House Counsel (who heads a team of lawyers for the President and offers legal advice regarding E.O.s, signing/vetoing legislation, etc.).

So if 45 directed a "private" (non-federal employee) lawyer to contact Pence to encourage Pence to violate the law, then all bets should be off to consider that any kind of "official duty".

[Orrex]

39. Oh, wow. Thanks!

That's a terrific strategy by Smith!

It's just a shame that we have a SCOTUS willing to make up laws on the fly to cover for Trump.