The Supreme Court’s decision last month barred the government from using certain “official acts” Trump had taken as president in its prosecution.

A federal grand jury on Tuesday returned a superseding indictment that charges Trump with the same four counts he faced in the original indictment last August: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

The new indictment was returned following the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity last month, which barred the government from using certain “official acts” Trump took in his role as president in its prosecution.

“The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions,” special counsel Jack Smith’s office said in Tuesday’s filing.

  • Estiar@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    3·
    3 months ago

    We might see the legal precedent for what constitutes an official act or not in this next court case. Or not. My predictions are that

    1. Prosecution is going to try and argue that certain actions that are part of the office of the president are not official acts, especially if they were not in writing
    2. Defense is going to argue the maximalist interpretation of official acts and presidential immunity
    3. There will be another appeal to the Supreme Court
    4. This case will be delayed until after the November election

    My questions are

    1. How many charges are now possible to prosecute?
    2. What other precedent will this case set for future POTUS?
    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksOPMEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      Both great questions. For number 1, if Harris doesn’t win, it won’t matter. If she does and SCOTUS rules fairly (which is unpredictable), I think the documents case were acts of his after he stepped down. The fraud case was before and the interference case were all unofficial acts because it was treason. I’m pretty sure treason is unofficial.

      • Estiar@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Treason has a very specific definition under US law. (Specifically written into the US Constitution) Trump isn’t facing Treason charges.

        He is facing charges of Willful retention of National Defense Information, obstruction of justice, and withholding records as well as making false statements. This is for the Florida case

        He faces 10 counts of racketeering in Georgia

        This case in DC over Jan 6 has conspiracy to defraud the US, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

        Apparently, the revised indictment for this case has Donald Trump as a political candidate, rather than president. He is going to argue that all of those actions he took were unofficial as they were connected to his candidacy for POTUS.

        • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksOPMEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          Treason has a very specific definition under US law. (Specifically written into the US Constitution) Trump isn’t facing Treason charges.

          True, he’s not being charged with treason, that doesn’t mean he didn’t commit treason. If we had a less corrupt Congress and SCOTUS, he would have been charged with treason. It simpler times, he would be in prison. That was off hand as funny anyway.

          Why wasn’t Donald Trump charged with treason?

          The allegation here is that the Donald Trump incited an insurrection against the United States government. That sure sounds like treason! However, the Constitution defines one crime (the rest come from federal or state statutes) and that crime is treason. It is strictly defined as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

          This is where a lot of disagreement emerges. Some scholars think that this clause requires helping a foreign enemy, so that there is no way what happened on January 6th could be considered treason. Others think domestic insurrection might also qualify, but one problem is an 1851 precedent that indicates that there needs to be an intent to overthrow the government to prove treason. Were the rioters at the Capitol trying to actually overthrow the government? Or were they merely trying to disrupt a government function? All of this gets very complicated and would almost definitely bog down the trial, which is probably why the House impeachment team decided not to bring a specific treason charge and instead relied on the catch-all “high crimes and misdemeanors” charge. That’s a much safer bet.

          https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/trump-impeachment-treason-1125445/

          Apparently, the revised indictment for this case has Donald Trump as a political candidate, rather than president. He is going to argue that all of those actions he took were unofficial as they were connected to his candidacy for POTUS.

          Good, whatever it takes him to be out of our lives and with no power. I don’t care if he lives or even goes to prison, why is he running for president right now? It’s insane.

          • Estiar@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            2·
            3 months ago

            Why is he running for president? Because that’s where the power is to keep him out of prison is. The system isn’t quite working for him, so he intends to change it and pardon himself or even make it impossible to prosecute him in the future. That’s my conjecture anyway. I have little hope on understanding him completely as he adds in so many falsehoods to his speech.

            I also know that he hates to lose, and so therefore he needs a rematch. He has an interesting obsession with winners and losers