On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court gave Special Counsel Jack Smith one week to respond to former and potentially future President Donald Trump's request from Monday that the Court keep his trial to do with the January 6 case on hold as claims of presidential immunity are considered. Smith has already responded, though, doing so with a Wednesday filing as he urged the Court to reject Trump's request.
Such a request from Trump comes after the DC Court of Appeals ruled last week that Trump does not have presidential immunity. Coverage from The Hill notes that "Trump has yet to formally ask the high court to take up the case itself, a move expected in a later filing."
Trump is hoping to delay the trial to avoid a decision before the November election. If he's successful with such a delay, and becomes president once more, he'll likely pardon himself or direct his Department of Justice (DOJ) to drop the charges against him.
Smith, however, is urging speed, citing some kind of "public interest." As The Hill also highlighted about the filing:
“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power,” prosecutors wrote.
Smith’s request reflects the need for speed in Trump’s election interference trial, with the March 4 trial date held in abeyance until the court settles whether he enjoys any immunity from criminal charges as a former president.
If the Supreme Court is inclined to review Trump’s immunity claims, Smith urged the justices to take up the matter now, expedite the case and set it for argument in March.
That timeline would lead to a decision by the summer, if not earlier, potentially enabling Trump to go to trial before the general election, if the case does move forward.
“An expedited schedule would permit the Court to issue its opinion and judgment resolving the threshold immunity issue as promptly as possible this Term, so that, if the Court rejects applicant’s immunity claim, a timely and fair trial can begin with minimal additional delay,” Smith’s office wrote in the filing.
President of the Committee for Justice Curt Levey, who has been weighing in throughout this week, made a key point about what seems to be the special counsel's motivation. "The fact that the Supreme Court gave Jack Smith a week to respond and he only took a day is one more indication that Smith is hell-bent on putting Trump on trial before the election. Smith's response cites the public interest in a speedy verdict, but his main interest seems to be hindering Trump's chances of winning the 2024 election," Levey shared.
It's worth reminding that Smith himself had asked the Supreme Court last December to weigh in on the matter of presidential immunity, though the justices that same month declined to do so for the time being.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who has spoken out against Smith before, was quite critical, issuing posts from both of his X accounts. This included a reminder about how Smith had previously requested that the Court weigh in.
"Jack Smith is an unhinged zealot," Cotton posted on Thursday morning, using what seems to be a preferred term of his, as he's called Smith an "ideological zealot" in the past.
Jack Smith is an unhinged zealot. Two months ago, he said it was “of imperative public importance” for the Supreme Court to take Trump’s case because “only this Court can definitively resolve” it. Now he’s flip-flopped. All in a rush to convict Trump before the election—a blatant…
— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) February 15, 2024
Jack Smith’s fanatical case against President Trump is about one thing: saving Joe Biden’s campaign. This would be more fitting in a banana republic than America.
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) February 15, 2024
Cotton and many more users, as Levey similarly did, also brought up the November election. Trump is largely expected to be the Republican nominee once more, and so it's looking likely that 2024 will be a rematch from 2020 between him and President Joe Biden.
Jack Smith has basically said he wants a trial before the election so he can influence the outcome
— Jim Hanson (@JimHansonDC) February 15, 2024
We will see if SCOTUS allows him to short circuit the normal processes & continue this abuse of power https://t.co/RlVvWkBCpq
Jack Smith comes as close as ever to admitting a verdict is necessary before Election Day.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) February 15, 2024
What Smith avoids—but the court knows—is DOJ is on a collision course at SCOTUS. Oral arguments should be held in March or April related to reversal of DOJ’s use of 1512c2, obstruction of… https://t.co/cQ5aSmpX2C
Why does Jack Smith keep urging courts to speed up the Trump trial without mentioning that he, Smith, is racing to try, convict, and sentence Trump before the November 5 election? Smith's new filing says the public has a 'compelling interest' of 'unique national importance' in…
— Byron York (@ByronYork) February 15, 2024
Trump is also facing his hush money case in New York and the election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia. The New York case is set to go forward with jury selection as scheduled on March 25. Not long after Judge Juan Merchan made his decision about such a date, the Make America Great Again, Inc. PAC on Thursay morning put out a press release on the Manhattan DA who brought such charges, highlighting how "Alvin Bragg's Weak-On-Crime Policies Put New Yorkers In Danger."
As Mia has been covering at length, though, the Fulton County DA Fani Willis has been facing accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. The trial to disqualify her started earlier on Thursday morning.
Especially with how likely Trump is to be facing Biden in November, and with the current president's own reported comments about his thoughts on Attorney General Merrick Garland handling such cases, we're being reminded all over again how such weaponization of the DOJ amounts to election interference.