Jack Smith has strategically employed words from Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to strengthen his case against the former president.
Newsweek reported that Smith's recent filing in Trump's election fraud case heavily relies on Barrett's opinion from the Supreme Court's July 1 ruling on presidential immunity.
Barrett, a Trump appointee to the Supreme Court, unexpectedly deviated from the court's majority by suggesting that some of Trump's presidential acts could be admissible as evidence against him. This opinion has become crucial in Smith's strategy to prosecute Trump for election fraud.
Smith's dossier of evidence, released on Thursday, prominently features Barrett's opinion. The special counsel quoted Barrett's view that Trump's conduct related to the elector scheme is inherently private and not subject to immunity.
The defendant's conduct with respect to the elector scheme is inherently private, and not subject to immunity. Sorting private from official conduct sometimes will be difficult—but not always. Take the President's alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection.
The filing's timing is significant, coming in response to the Supreme Court's recommendation to obtain evidence early to assess compliance with their July 1 ruling on presidential immunity.
Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University School of Law, provided insight into Smith's filing. He told Newsweek:
The president has no role in deciding the result of the election. The evidence concerns Trump's behavior on January 6 or in communications with officials in select states, all to enable him to be certified as the winner or to prevent the Electoral College from declaring a winner and sending the contest to the House.
Gillers emphasized that these activities are personal, not official, as Trump was acting as a candidate rather than in an official capacity.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani also weighed in on Smith's strategy. He highlighted the importance of proving that Trump's conduct was private to avoid dismissal based on presidential immunity.
Rahmani noted that Smith's focus on Trump's communications with private individuals and campaign officials is crucial in establishing this point.
The incorporation of Barrett's opinion in Smith's filing presents a significant hurdle for Trump's legal team. It undermines the argument that all of Trump's actions during the contested period were protected by presidential immunity.
Trump faces multiple charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding, related to his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.
He has consistently denied all charges and claimed to be the victim of a political witch hunt.
Jack Smith's use of Amy Coney Barrett's opinion in his filing against Donald Trump represents a significant development in this high-profile case. By leveraging the words of a Trump-appointed justice, Smith challenges the former president's immunity claims and highlights the fine line between official and private presidential conduct.
