Federal Court Drops Hammer on Jack Smith, Denies His Outrageous Request

by Jessica
768 views

According to a Conservative Brief News report on Sunday, September 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Smith’s quest for access to the phone records of Rep.Scott Perry (R-Pa.) violates the GOP lawmaker’s constitutional immunity under the “speech and debate” clause.

This clause protects members of Congress from legal proceedings while performing their official duties, as reported by Politico.

Smith’s primary aim was to gain access to Perry’s communications with both colleagues and Executive Branch officials.

However, the court’s decision underscores the sanctity of legislative acts performed by members of Congress.

U.S. District Judge Neomi Rao, who issued the opinion, highlighted that deliberations regarding the certification of a presidential election or the assessment of legislation related to federal election procedures fall squarely within the realm of legislative acts.

What makes this decision particularly notable is that it represents the first instance where an appeals court has extended the same protections to lawmakers’ cell phones as those afforded to their physical offices.

Additionally, it marks a significant legal setback for Smith in his ongoing efforts to gather evidence regarding any involvement by allies of former President Donald Trump in his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.

The panel of judges responsible for this ruling includes Trump appointee Judge Rao, along with Judge Gregory Katsas, also appointed by Trump, and Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, nominated by President George H.W. Bush.

Their collective decision effectively overturns a prior ruling by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who had largely favored the government’s request for access to Perry’s cellphone data.

As a result of this appeals court ruling, the case has been returned to Judge Howell’s court, with instructions to apply the new legal precedent in any future decisions related to the case.

Meanwhile, on a separate front, Fox News host Jesse Watters publicly criticized Special Counsel Jack Smith for indicting former President Donald Trump in two distinct cases.

During a segment on “The Five,” Watters characterized Smith as a “nervous wreck” and raised questions about Smith’s legal history before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Smith had secured a four-count indictment against Trump, including charges related to the willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and false statements.

This followed a prior 37-count indictment against Trump involving allegations concerning classified documents, which was later expanded to include charges against Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance worker at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Watters, while showing a clip of Smith’s press conference announcing the new charges, commented on Smith’s demeanor, describing him as visibly agitated and emotional.

He also reminded viewers of a previous case involving Smith’s prosecution of then-Republican Gov. Bob McDowell of Virginia, which ultimately resulted in a Supreme Court unanimous dismissal.

Watters emphasized that the charges against Trump were not related to bribery, assault, tax evasion, or sex trafficking but were being brought under the Act of 1866, historically used against the Ku Klux Klan, and now, in the eyes of critics, being employed against Trump.

This recent court decision and public scrutiny underscore the complex legal and political dynamics surrounding Smith’s investigation and its potential implications for former President Trump.

Related Posts