Jamie, your January 6 coverage has been phenomenal, and I'm so grateful.
I didn't have time to read the whole document from Jack Smith yesterday. Did he take out everything related to Jeffrey Clark and Trump's efforts to get the DOJ to overturn the election, on the grounds that those would have been official acts by the president?
Jamie, your January 6 coverage has been phenomenal, and I'm so grateful.
I didn't have time to read the whole document from Jack Smith yesterday. Did he take out everything related to Jeffrey Clark and Trump's efforts to get the DOJ to overturn the election, on the grounds that those would have been official acts by the president?
If so, I don't understand how (in light of the SCOTUS ruling) all of these conversations with Pence can be introduced as evidence supporting the indictment. Isn't every conversation between a president and VP an official act? I get that certifying the electoral college count is a legislative function of the VP but it seems like this document includes a lot of supporting evidence that could be construed as an official act by Trump.
Hi Laura. Thanks for your note. You are correct, everything related to Jeffrey Clark was taken out of the revised indictment. I also am not convinced that the Trump-Pence conversations will be allowed as evidence under the Supreme Court's immunity ruling - which I should parenthetically note is a real travesty. I don't think Nixon could have been investigated for Watergate using this ruling.
Maybe Jack Smith knows the judge will rule many of the Pence details were official acts, but he wanted to get the information into the public domain before the election.
Agree, it is a travesty and contrary to a plain reading of the Constitution. The framers included legislative immunity and certainly could have spelled out immunity for the president if they had wanted to do so.
Jamie, your January 6 coverage has been phenomenal, and I'm so grateful.
I didn't have time to read the whole document from Jack Smith yesterday. Did he take out everything related to Jeffrey Clark and Trump's efforts to get the DOJ to overturn the election, on the grounds that those would have been official acts by the president?
If so, I don't understand how (in light of the SCOTUS ruling) all of these conversations with Pence can be introduced as evidence supporting the indictment. Isn't every conversation between a president and VP an official act? I get that certifying the electoral college count is a legislative function of the VP but it seems like this document includes a lot of supporting evidence that could be construed as an official act by Trump.
Hi Laura. Thanks for your note. You are correct, everything related to Jeffrey Clark was taken out of the revised indictment. I also am not convinced that the Trump-Pence conversations will be allowed as evidence under the Supreme Court's immunity ruling - which I should parenthetically note is a real travesty. I don't think Nixon could have been investigated for Watergate using this ruling.
Maybe Jack Smith knows the judge will rule many of the Pence details were official acts, but he wanted to get the information into the public domain before the election.
Agree, it is a travesty and contrary to a plain reading of the Constitution. The framers included legislative immunity and certainly could have spelled out immunity for the president if they had wanted to do so.