Jack Smith's Trump Case Update

Special Counsel Jack Smith needs more time to prepare his legal response in his January 6 election interference case against President Donald Trump. Smith claims that the U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ ruling to return the issue of presidential immunity to the lower courts has caused too much work for his legal team.

Jack Smith’s request is ironic because he originally wanted to rush Trump’s immunity case to trial (whether or not Trump has post-presidential immunity for “official acts” while serving as President), and the Justices said no.

Ultimately, the Justices heard President Trump’s immunity case and delivered a blow to Smith, ruling 6-3 that all former Presidents have immunity from prosecution for “official acts.” In doing so, the Justices agreed with the ACLJ’s amicus brief in support of presidential immunity.

This massive ruling occurred just days after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Fischer v. United States that the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of the destruction-of-evidence statute (18 U.S.C. § 1512) was improper and incorrect – a significant step in making sure that people are not punished by laws that infringe upon their speech. The ACLJ filed an amicus brief because of the importance of the right to protest peacefully.

So now Smith wants an extension until August 30 to get his case together. Will the judge give him the extra time to continue his political prosecution of President Trump?

My dad, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, commented on Smith’s ongoing attempt to take down President Trump:

I think . . . Jack Smith has come to the realization that his whole operation is just about up.  We know about these Special Counsels because we litigated and dealt with it with Bob Mueller. And the problem that you have here is the Supreme Court opinion, and by the way, it not only affected the situation down in Florida, but it also affected the New York prosecution (the state prosecution). Because [the Supreme Court] said that you cannot have any evidence of wrongful acts. Basically, if, in fact, it was “official acts” of the President, the Court can’t get involved in that. . . . Jack Smith is in a free fall.

My dad concluded by saying he wouldn’t be surprised if Smith took the extra time to decide it was not worth moving forward and there were motions to dismiss.

As we told you yesterday, the ACLJ and Empower Oversight are taking legal action on behalf of Tulsi Gabbard, a member of the ACLJ’s Sekulow team. Tulsi has experienced the full brunt of the Deep State as she’s found herself on a terrorist watchlist (“Quiet Skies” program). It’s outrageous that she and her husband are being followed by Air Marshals and Explosive Detection Canine Teams every time they board an airplane.

The Biden-Harris Administration is fully weaponizing the government against its political enemies. And if they can do it against high-profile individuals like Tulsi Gabbard – who has a distinguished career in the military and Congress – then they can do it to regular citizens.

The targeting of Tulsi reminds me of what the ACLJ went through during the IRS targeting of conservative organizations. The Obama-Biden Administration was retaliating against grassroots groups that disagreed with its radical policies. We successfully retrieved an apology from the IRS after defeating the Deep State IRS in a major lawsuit.

The ACLJ is determined to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary, on behalf of Tulsi to defend the constitutional rights of all conservatives. We are preparing to submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI, demanding answers about how and why Tulsi has been unconstitutionally targeted.

No one should ever be placed on a terrorist watchlist because they disagree with the current President’s policies. That’s as un-American as it gets. We will keep you updated on our forthcoming legal action.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included a full analysis of Jack Smith’s attempt to get an extension to prepare his Jan. 6 case against Trump. Plus, ACLJ Senior Counsel for International and Government Affairs Jeff Ballabon reacted to Vice President Kamala Harris’ openness to discuss a weapons embargo on Israel.

Watch the full broadcast below: