Addressing a legal brief submitted by Donald Trump's lawyers to the Supreme Court requesting that the court not rush hearings on whether the former president is afforded presidential immunity, ex-U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance noted the inclusion of social media posts in lieu of citing case law.
On her Civil Discourse Substack platform, the former prosecutor found it amusing that Trump's legal team saw fit to include tweets from pundits that carry exactly zero weight when deciding constitutional issues.
Along the way, she took a jab at the attorneys for apparently agreeing to share them with court at the former president's urging.
"Letting the client dictate the arguments that make it into a brief can damage the arguments overall credibility, and there’s some sense that happens here," she wrote, "It’s not often you see lawyers relying on political pundits instead of legal authority to prove their points, but it occurs here."
Case in point a posting on X, formerly known as Twitter, where the lawyers cited Byron York, who identifies as, "Chief political correspondent, Washington Examiner. Fox News contributor. Host of ‘The Byron York Show' podcast.”
ALSO READ: How Republicans paved the road to Texas with misogyny
York wrote, "Did I miss something? In SCOTUS request, Jack Smith repeatedly says it's super important Trump immunity issue be decided quickly. But he doesn't say *why* it must be decided quickly. Obviously, that is so Trump can be tried, convicted, and sentenced before 2024 election. Why not explicitly say so?"
Trump's lawyers used that to imply, "As soon as the Special Counsel’s petition was filed, commentators from across the political spectrum observed that its evident motivation is to schedule the trial before the 2024 presidential election—a nakedly political motive.”
That led Vance to retort, tongue-in-cheek: "If it’s in a Tweet, it must be a good argument for the Supreme Court to buy into, or so thinks Trump."
You can read more here.
