# DOJ/Jack Smith Investigation into Trump and Election Interference, January 6th Insurrection (Re-Indicted August 27, 2024) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [November 23, 2022, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455 "2022-11-23T20:14:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 121
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2404 "2024-07-01T19:41:18Z")
Follow the logic, though. Prior to browbeating the various state officials, Trump had zero basis to believe that any state’s elections were improper. Here’s the syllogism: 1. Trump is advised multiple times by his own advisors that the election was fair and he lost. 2. Trump or his surrogates berate various state officials to find votes for him, don’t certify, “re-do,” etc. 3. Trump had no authority to monkey around with a properly run state election. 4. Point number one may not be considered, therefore we cannot establish the mens rea that makes the act unofficial—i.e., he said they were improper election results, and if they were, there is a legitimate interest for the Feds to intervene. Point number three is rendered toothless. 5. Any motive he had, no matter how much evidence supports a corrupt intent, may be considered. 6. It’s an official act and Americans who don’t like it can just fuck off. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2405 "2024-07-01T20:39:52Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The matter isn’t “acts”, it’s communications and evidence. This is a question of which particular items of evidence are permissible in trial. Why is that at all relevant? OK, so he’s not criminally liable for his communications with his staff. But there are plenty of things that aren’t themselves illegal, that can nonetheless be relevant evidence for other acts that are. So why can’t that be the case here? > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The President does have a duty to ensure that the election is run with integrity… And therefore, any act taken with the intent of removing integrity from elections cannot possibly be an official act. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2406 "2024-07-01T20:41:04Z")
The president’s motives may not be considered. It’s in the majority opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2407 "2024-07-01T20:42:14Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Any motive he had, no matter how much evidence supports a corrupt intent, may be considered. That should be “may not,” three posts above. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2408 "2024-07-01T21:02:00Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > why can’t that be the case here? Because of the law and precedence. > [@](#): > > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect. Indeed, “[i]t would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government” if “[i]n exercising the functions of his office," the President was “under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 745 (quot > ing Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483, 498 (1896)) ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2409 "2024-07-01T21:26:19Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Prior to browbeating the various state officials, Trump had zero basis to believe that any state’s elections were improper. Here’s the syllogism: > > 1. Trump is advised multiple times by his own advisors that the election was fair and he lost. > 2. Trump or his surrogates berate various state officials to find votes for him, don’t certify, “re-do,” etc. > 3. Trump had no authority to monkey around with a properly run state election. > 4. Point number one may not be considered, therefore we cannot establish the mens rea that makes the act unofficial—i.e., he said they were improper election results, and if they were, there is a legitimate interest for the Feds to intervene. Point number three is rendered toothless. > 5. Any motive he had, no matter how much evidence supports a corrupt intent, may be considered. > 6. It’s an official act and Americans who don’t like it can just fuck off. That would be a poor prosecution strategy, to be sure. But, likewise, if there’s video of your client murdering the victim, I’m not sure that you really need to cry or wring your hands towards the sky because the fingerprint evidence was ruled inadmissible. Just, you know, use the video that shows the defendant murdering the other guy. More evidence is always better. That’s certainly true. Losing the stuff in the DOJ is worse than retaining it. I don’t, personally, see it as making a large difference. Trump cannot, at any point, claim to have had any information that implied the election was unfair. He can’t say, “Well, my people told me it was crooked.” He’d have to break immunity to make that case. All the can do is swear up and down that he was doing it for the sake of election integrity and, while the court is required to accept that as a viable defense, Trump still needs to make that case - _which he can’t do while preserving immunity_ since, of course, breaking immunity would go the opposite way on him. So he can offer the defense and the judge has to give him the right to make that claim. But he still needs to convince a jury and, for that, he has nothing. Whereas, even excluding the DOJ, the prosecution still has a butt load of people saying that there was nothing and more than several dozens of court cases that show that Trump knew better. Mens rea isn’t all that difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2410 "2024-07-01T21:33:57Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Trump cannot, at any point, claim to have had any information that implied the election was unfair. He can’t say, “Well, my people told me it was crooked.” He’d have to break immunity to make that case. All the can do is swear up and down that he was doing it for the sake of election integrity and, while the court is required to accept that as a viable defense, Trump still needs to make that case - _which he can’t do while preserving immunity_ since, of course, breaking immunity would go the opposite way on him. He needn’t make any case at all. The Feds have a legitimate interest to intervene when state elections are rigged. He said that’s what he was doing. It’s an official act and he has presumptive immunity. ---
**Author:** ![Jihi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jihi/32/17768_2.png) [@Jihi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jihi)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2411 "2024-07-01T22:20:15Z")
Just heard on the radio, so no cite unfortunately, but it’s being reported that Biden will be making a statement at approximately 7:45 ET tonight. I half hope the first sentence out of his mouth includes the words “SEAL Team 6”. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2412 "2024-07-01T22:31:22Z")
No way it’s anything but an infuriatingly patronizing “now now now, let’s not overreact…” ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2413 "2024-07-01T22:32:07Z")
deleted. Probably too OT. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2414 "2024-07-01T23:04:24Z")
> [@Jihi](#): > > Just heard on the radio, so no cite unfortunately, but it’s being reported that Biden will be making a statement at approximately 7:45 ET tonight. Here’s a cite: > **[Live | The White House](https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/)** > > LIVE White House events and press briefings with President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other administration officials. And here is the direct link, I am not sure this will work as an inline video but I’ll still try: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/vtc_n4Tqr8k/maxresdefault.jpg "President Biden Delivers Remarks on the Supreme Court's Immunity Ruling") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtc_n4Tqr8k) ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2415 "2024-07-01T23:04:28Z")
Biden should (but won’t) take full advantage of this decision come October/November. I am so tired of unilaterally disarming in the face of a literal existential crisis. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2416 "2024-07-01T23:07:00Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > The Feds have a legitimate interest to intervene when state elections are rigged. He said that’s what he was doing. It’s an official act and he has presumptive immunity. In terms of investigations, yes. In terms of generating votes, no. Go back to [post 2403](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-indicted-08-01-23/975455/2403). ---
**Author:** ![Jihi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jihi/32/17768_2.png) [@Jihi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jihi)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2417 "2024-07-01T23:16:06Z")
It just occurred to me that my last post was probably OT. My apologies to the mods for that. I lost track of which thread I was in. This decision is pretty much touching on every single Trump related topic though so hopefully not too far OT. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2418 "2024-07-01T23:42:25Z")
**The president is now immune from prosecution for any criminal act conducted in his capacity as chief executive.** Period. Ensuring election integrity is within his purview. Who’s to say that asking for them to find votes wasn’t based on a sincere belief that there were legitimate votes to be found? We’re no longer permitted to consider his motivations. You’re applying common sense to what is now a very narrow legal rubric. I’m saying that’s their reasoning, and I wouldn’t rule out a do-over if some absurd outcome materializes. “Yeah, clearly we didn’t mean that.” Well, that’s what they said. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2419 "2024-07-01T23:42:44Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Here’s the official decision on immunity: > > [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939\_e2pg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf) Anybody want to try to summarize what all the legalese actually means, and how it will affect the various cases? I mean, it says that the President is immune for acts done as part of his official duties, and not immune for acts done outside of his official duties. I think most of us knew that already. Does this decision mean the cases can go ahead, or that they can’t go ahead, or what? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2420 "2024-07-01T23:46:13Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > I mean, it says that **the President is immune for acts done as part of his official duties,** and not immune for acts done outside of his official duties. I think most of us knew that already. Emphasis added. Until 10:30 this morning, none of us knew this. 250 years of rulings and legal understanding contradicts this. Nixon would have skated if Roberts had been CJ. No one argued this before this case. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2421 "2024-07-02T00:08:37Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Until 10:30 this morning, none of us knew this. 250 years of rulings and legal understanding contradicts this. Nixon would have skated if Roberts had been CJ. I disagree. No other President had committed the kind of crime he would need immunity for. And Nixon did skate- he resigned instead of being impeached and Ford pardoned him. No criminal charges were ever brought. And they could have- Ford’s pardon only covered Federal crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2422 "2024-07-02T00:12:59Z")
Well, you’re wrong. This has been a bedrock principle, that no man (including the prez) is above the law, since the Federalist papers. It’s not a new concept. Why do you suppose Ford issued a pardon? Why was there outrage over it, rather than a shoulder shrug since it was apparently irrelevant? ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/2423 "2024-07-02T00:40:42Z")
From what I am hearing from msnbc, the whole kit and kaboodle goes back to judge Chutkan. Of the 5 things that are in the indictment, 1 is off the table, the bit with the department of justice; 2 is trump is presumptively immune from pressuring pence, Chutkan could find otherwise; the other 3, false claims of voter fraud, fake elector scheme, and actions on Jan 6 are all on the table to be determined if they are outside the scope. Most reckon that the hearings could start by September. This means that even though the trial is not going to happen this hearing could put a lot of things into the public realm before the election. Some of the above can be found here. > **[What does the Supreme Court immunity ruling mean for Trump? 6 questions answered](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-the-supreme-court-ruling-mean-for-trump-6-questions-answered)** > > What happens to Trump’s federal criminal charges, especially if he is reelected? Here are five quick questions about the court’s ruling. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455.md?page=120) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455.md?page=122)