Intriguing dynamics have unfolded within the U.S. Justice Department, as notable Special Counsel Jack Smith recently requested a pause on proceedings in the ongoing examination into former President Trump’s actions surrounding January 6. Highly regarded for his constant momentum, this unusual move from Smith has piqued interest. Previously, Judge Tanya Chutkan instructed Smith to consult with Trump’s legal team to propose a calendar by August 9 for an August 16 discussion. Instead, Smith submitted a brief joint status report outlining the need for additional time to evaluate the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s concept of presidential immunity. The new plan now mentions an August 30 update.
Interestingly, Trump’s legal team concurred with the postponement. Judge Chutkan approved the proposal, leading to a revised hearing date set for Sept. 5, a little more than two months before the upcoming election. The Justice Department, along with Smith’s team, has had approximately 40 days to strategize the best course of action in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision, which seems to lean in favor of Trump. Despite some elements of Smith’s investigation potentially being affected by the ruling—such as any communication Trump may have had with the DOJ—it essentially sends the investigation back to Judge Chutkan for sorting permissible evidence for the trial.
Both the D.C. Circuit and Judge Chutkan demonstrated quick action when the Supreme Court sent the case back. Both courts proceeded promptly as soon as the case returned to their hands. It, therefore, intrigues observers why Smith requires extra time merely to suggest a schedule. Drawing from prior experience in DOJ leadership roles, Smith’s inclination to “consultation with other Department of Justice components” is easily understood. These components might include the offices of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Solicitor General, among others.
In any large establishment like the DOJ, internal consultation and meetings are standard practice to establish policies and directions. Nevertheless, given the time elapsed, an observer might wonder if procedural matters could have been resolved already. A segment of commentators, including the notable Norm Eisen—CNN legal analyst and founder of States United Democracy Center—expressed disappointment with Smith’s decision.
Several possible interpretations could arise from this situation. Topmost on the list is a potential strife between Smith’s team’s propensity to expedite proceedings and the DOJ leadership’s caution about aggressive actions close to election time. One possible next step could be a ‘mini-trial’ with live witnesses to identify which actions by Trump were indeed official acts subject to exemption. If such a process takes place pre-election, it could refresh public memory of Trump’s administrative actions.
Concerns about the Justice Department being perceived as an instrument of the Biden administration may entail a thoroughly meticulous approach by Garland before proceeding. Another plausible conjecture could be that Smith may be planning to refine his charges, making them less susceptible to challenge, or he could possibly present charges against previously un-indicted co-conspirators. Some analysts have suggested this strategy, leveraging the fact that an actual trial before the election has been hindered by the high court’s decision timeline.
Another interesting suggestion includes the Supreme Court decision impacting the obstruction of justice definition under 18 U.S.C. section 1512(c)(2), which would require the DOJ to rethink how the decision might influence the Trump case. This theory, advocated by independent journalist Marcy Wheeler, explains how this case has already prompted postponement and restructuring of charges against defendants accused of violence on January 6.
Naturally, Smith’s strategy might be perceived as a ‘long game’, considering reports indicate plans to carry on examining the Trump case beyond the election and possibly till the inauguration. Under this sequence of events, the additional time could potentially be employed fruitfully if Trump does not secure victory. However, if Trump emerges victorious, the developments would become irrelevant, placing the nation in a situation where it would engage and follow the cues from the Supreme Court’s decision and the time it took for the Attorney General to initiate proceedings.
DOJ Delays Investigation, Trump Scores a Victory appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
