Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tom of Temecula

(1,535 posts)
Sun Dec 31, 2023, 09:58 AM Dec 2023

'A tour de force': Experts reveal Jack Smith's 'sly' additions to new Trump filing

Special Counsel Jack Smith's team didn't pull any punches in its new filing contesting Donald Trump's claims of absolute presidential immunity in the former president's D.C. election subversion case, numerous legal experts said on Saturday.

Smith's motion, which former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance said could force Trump to move more quickly when it comes to his Supreme Court immunity appeal, argued that the ex-president was "wrong" to say his acts were within the parameters of his presidential duties.

But legal professionals online noticed some easter eggs, and flagged some other key points buried deep within the more than 80-page filing. Several onlookers noticed, for instance, that the filing was targeted for Supreme Court review. Specifically, according to those who read the motion, it was meant to be read by the conservative justices on the bench.

Legal expert and former Justice Department prosecutor Andrew Weissmann commented on a post by a fellow legal analyst, pointing out that the filing was "classic Dreeben," referencing former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, a heavy hitter Smith brought on board to press the top court. By calling the filing "classic Dreeben," Weissmann says he means it is "a tour de force," and that it's "VERY geared to [Supreme Court] review."

https://www.rawstory.com/jack-smith-filing-sly-additions/

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

ProudMNDemocrat

(17,265 posts)
1. It appears thst Jack Smith stays 2 steps ahead of everyone else
Sun Dec 31, 2023, 10:21 AM
Dec 2023

Including the Supreme Court. Citing precedence along the way.

Jack Smith is deftly boxing the Court in. They rule in Dipshit's favor, all bets are off. Dipshit loses either way and Jack Smith knows it. So does the Court.

paleotn

(18,169 posts)
4. Yep. Appoint talented experts and let them do their thing.
Sun Dec 31, 2023, 11:28 AM
Dec 2023

They make the rubes look like, well, rubes. The inevitable outcome of the Dunning-Kruger effect where the dumb asses get their butts kicked. Expertise strikes back.

Lovie777

(12,774 posts)
2. He's got the evidence, facts, documentation and witnesses...............................
Sun Dec 31, 2023, 10:35 AM
Dec 2023

shithole have RW judges and justices, some in the DOJ, F.B.I., C.I.A., etc.

Hopefully the rule of law will prevail.

sop

(10,615 posts)
6. Maybe the doctrinaire Federalist Society Six will look at Smith's filing with an open mind, but I doubt it.
Sun Dec 31, 2023, 12:36 PM
Dec 2023

A number of their recent rulings have been based on a lot of originalist mumble jumble, even citing 17th century sermons and offering other pseudo-legal incantations. I don't believe this court will do the right thing.

Bernardo de La Paz

(49,325 posts)
8. Tom, if you keep posting like this I'm gonna hafta
Sun Dec 31, 2023, 01:23 PM
Dec 2023

I'm going to have to make you the second of two members I subscribe to.

In fact, I'll do it now.

Cheers!


... on edit ... Done.

scipan

(2,401 posts)
9. Summary: what tfg (and Biden!) could do if immune:
Sun Dec 31, 2023, 03:09 PM
Dec 2023

?t=jryhXPmvC0ZZ9HpojyFnaw&s=19
"....or a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary;"
Now where did he get that idea?

ETA: This may be better to read:

?t=jy3wTmok6jsfDRKYTUL8kw&s=19
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»'A tour de force': Expert...