Jack Smith

Reflecting on the Supreme Court's curt denial of special counsel Jack Smith's filing to intercede at the earliest date and rule on whether presidential immunity should be extended to Donald Trump's actions before and during the Jan. 6 riot, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance presented a "fantasy scenario" that would create problems for the former president's legal team.

On her Civil Discourse Substack platform, Vance pointed out that Trump's attempt to slow-walk his multiple trials with "frivolous" motions that stand no chance of being successful are at the heart of his legal team's strategy. But the judges seated on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could make their ruling quickly while at the same time giving Judge Tanya Chutkan the go-ahead to proceed with her schedule.

As Vance noted, Chutkan's trial of Trump is dead in the water due to a stay from the court while it considers the issue of presidential immunity and how it applies to Trump's actions.

In her "fantasy scenario," Vance claimed the judges could lift the stay which would take away the ability of Trump to stall his appeal to the Supreme Court and delay the proceedings even more.

"The fantasy scenario obviously depends on a lot of things going right, and it’s too early to have any sense about whether this is even a possibility," the former prosecutor conceded. "Although the court of appeals is on a fast track, we don’t know how long it will take them to issue a decision. Trump will presumably play out the time to ask for rehearing to the full extent possible."

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

She suggested, "The court could, perhaps, decide a stay was no longer warranted and permit Judge Chutkan to restart her pretrial proceedings, which could incentivize Trump to move more quickly, but again, there are a lot of different considerations involved and no certainties. The most honest conclusion I can give you tonight is that we just don’t know for sure how the schedule will shape up."

You can read more here.

Donald Trump's Friday afternoon claim that he scored a major victory at the Supreme Court when it denied special counsel Jack Smith's request to step in and rule on the former president's assertion of presidential immunity was larded with false claims and bravado that was in no way warranted.

That is the opinion of former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance who rained on Trump's parade with a fact check about what really occurred.

Following the ruling that the court is not yet ready to hear the opposing arguments until a lower court makes a ruling, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to boast, "The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Deranged Jack Smith’s desperate attempt to short circuit our Great Constitution. Crooked Joe Biden and his henchmen waited three years to bring this sham case, and now they have tried and failed to rush this Witch Hunt through the courts."

He then added, "Of course I am entitled to Presidential Immunity. I was President, it was my right and duty to investigate, and speak on, the rigged and stolen 2020 Presidential Election. Looking forward to the very important arguments on Presidential Immunity in front of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Make America Great Again!"

According to Vance, Trump's statement was full of egregious errors.

On her Civil Discourse Substack platform, she explained that the court in no way "unanimously rejected" a desperation move, with the former prosecutor writing that Smith, " ... asked for an established writ that has been used in other cases of similar magnitude to send an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Nor has the Court unanimously rejected the underlying issue, Judge Chutkan’s denial of Trump presidential immunity motion. That substantive issue is still to be decided."

Vance then took aim at Trump's assertion that the case sat for three years, writing, "to the contrary, from what we know, while there may have been some initial reluctance to investigate, by at least 2022, investigation was underway and the case, a very complicated one with lots of moving parts, was indicted on August 1, 2023. In other words, less than three years out from January 6, 2021."

On a final point, she flattened the former president for declaring "it was my right and duty to investigate, and speak on, the rigged and stolen 2020 Presidential election."

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

Absolutely wrong, she wrote.

"Elections are run by states. They certify their results on the basis of the results in each county. So, Trump had no right to get involved in the vote count in Wayne County, Michigan, but we now know that he tried to cajole Republican vote canvassers there into refusing to certify the lawful vote," she explained before adding, "If Trump suspected fraud he could report that to DOJ, which he of course did, and they told him in no uncertain terms they couldn’t find any evidence of it. So no, the election wasn’t rigged or stolen. And Trump had neither right nor duty to investigate. It’s just more red meat he throws at his base, hoping they won’t notice that it’s spoiled."

You can read more here.