Jack Smith

Post Reply New Topic

A federal judge presiding over the special counsel investigation into Donald Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election has largely rejected an effort by the ex-president to assert executive privilege over the testimony of his former vice president, Mike Pence, according to a person familiar with the ruling.

However, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg agreed that Pence does enjoy a degree of immunity from testifying due to his role as president of the Senate on Jan. 6. It was not immediately clear whether that ruling is broad enough to satisfy Pence’s resistance to the subpoena — issued by special counsel Jack Smith — or whether he intends to appeal.

Multiple U.S. Secret Service agents connected to former President Donald Trump's security detail have been subpoenaed by special counsel Jack Smith, according to a source familiar with the situation.

The subpoenas are part of Smith's investigation into Trump's handling of classified information at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the White House.

The agents' testimony is expected in the next few weeks. The development was first reported by Fox News.

The special counsel's office declined to comment to ABC News.

Former Vice President Mike Pence will not appeal a federal judge’s order that he testify in the special counsel’s probe of former President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, his adviser announced Wednesday.

The decision not to fight the order could provide special counsel Jack Smith with remarkable access to one of the key people with critical insight into Trump’s thinking and efforts to cling to power.

It’s unclear exactly when Pence will appear before the grand jury in Washington, according to a source familiar with the matter, and the case remains under seal. Trump’s attorneys could still appeal Boasberg’s ruling. Last week, his legal team filed an appeal to block the testimony of several of his senior aides.

Pence has already published a memoir and Wall Street Journal op-ed detailing several significant interactions with Trump in the days leading up to Jan. 6. NBC is told prosecutors are focused on specific efforts Trump took to try to block the certification of the election

Evan Corcoran, a key member of former President Trump’s legal team, has recused himself from the investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents after he was questioned by a grand jury last month, according to The Washington Post.

Corcoran will still represent Trump in other cases, including Smith’s investigation into the former president’s role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

He spoke to a grand jury last month after a court ruled that his communications with the former president did not fall under attorney-client privilege.

Federal prosecutors argued that the communications were part of a crime, and therefore not under privilege, according to the Post.

The Justice Department is expected to be considering obstruction of justice charges against Trump, focusing on a subpoena for classified documents made by the federal government after he left office.

Trump claimed to have already handed over all of the classified documents in his possession. However, while executing a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago last August, officials discovered boxes of additional documents.

Corcoran was key in communicating between the Trump team and federal investigators during the document search and preceding subpoena’s demand for documents.

Because grand jury sessions are secret, it is not known how Corcoran was questioned.
Still, recusing yourself from a case in such a scenario is standard legal ethics, according to the Post.

Apparently trump threatened Jack Smith and his wife - probably some pathetic truth social posts without much substance.

The waiting must be most agonal.

One of the lawyers from the legal af podcast said he's heard rumours circulating that Jack Smith is getting very close to charges in the maga-lardo stolen documents case.

:ketchup chips:

"Evidence."

Is it true though that in the US anyone can run for President and this technically even a convicted criminal serving time whether a scammer, gangster or murderer can actually be elected president? So going by their paltry requirements someone like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson could have run for and won the right to the highest office in the land?

In the aftermath of the events of January 6, 2021, in and around the U.S. Capitol, there have been calls for accountability for those who participated, as well as for those who may have helped instigate it. The breach of the Capitol resulted in numerous injuries, multiple deaths, and significant property damage. It also delayed Congress’s constitutional duty of certifying electoral votes for President-elect Joseph Biden and caused Capitol Police and other law enforcement personnel to evacuate the Vice President and Members of Congress from the House and Senate floors to safer locations. Some observers, historians, and other commentators are wondering whether the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment might provide a mechanism to disqualify individuals who participated in or encouraged the siege, including former and sitting government officials, from holding office.
Invocation of the Disqualification Clause raises a number of novel legal questions involving the activities that could trigger disqualification, the offices to which disqualification might apply, and the mechanisms to enforce disqualification. The clause has been seldom used, and the few times it has been used in the past mainly arose out of the Civil War—a very different context from the events of January 6. It is therefore unclear to what extent historical precedents provide useful guidance for its application to the events of January 6. This Legal Sidebar describes the Disqualification Clause, explains to whom it might apply and what activities could incur a bar on holding office, and discusses possible mechanisms to implement it.

In short, Section 3 disqualification appears to apply to any covered person who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and thereafter either (1) engages in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or (2) gives aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States, unless a supermajority of Congress “removes such disability.”
Enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, Section 3 seems specifically designed for the Reconstruction Era but may be applicable to modern times as well. Section 3 was for the most part used only for the short period between its ratification and the 1872 enactment of the Amnesty Act. The Amnesty Act removed the disqualification from most Confederates and their sympathizers and was enacted by a two-thirds majority of Congress in accordance with the terms of Section 3. Some argue the Amnesty Act operates retrospectively. In a recent case, Cawthorn v. Amalfi, discussed in this Legal Sidebar, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the act does not apply to later insurrections or treasonous acts.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

According to the text of Section 3, the bar against office-holding applies to Members of Congress, officers of the United States, members of state legislatures, and state executive or judicial officers, who previously swore an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and later break that oath by committing the acts mentioned. The offices to which such persons are then barred include seats in Congress, membership in the Electoral College, and any civil or military office under the United States or any state. Although not expressly referenced, the bar appears historically to have applied to judgeships. There is an argument that because the President is not covered explicitly by the provision, the presidency itself is exempt from the disqualification. In contrast, the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution explicitly applies to the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,” which suggests that the President might not be a “civil Officer of the United States” whose oath of office would subject him to possible disqualification. However, it may be more likely that the office of the President is included as an office under the United States (unlike Members of Congress and electors, which may be why they are expressly included), so that any person subject to the disqualification is ineligible to serve as President.

Determining who has engaged in either of the two disqualifying activities—that is, engaging in insurrection or rebellion or giving aid or comfort to an enemy—is likely to be a difficult task given the scarcity of precedents and lack of clear definitions.

The U.S. Constitution does not define insurrection or rebellion.