Jack Smith: False elector scheme saves Trump obstruction charges (www.politico.com)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“Donald Trump’s effort to assemble false slates of presidential electors in 2020 may wind up shielding special counsel Jack Smith’s case from a Supreme Court ruling that could sharply narrow the obstruction law at the heart of the indictment against the former president,” Politico reports.

“Smith argued Monday that even if the justices agree with a recent challenge — brought by several defendants charged with obstructing Congress’ work on Jan. 6, 2021 — the charges against Trump relying on the same law would still survive.”

“It’s Smith’s first indication that he isn’t sweating the Supreme Court’s impending decision in the obstruction case, which the justices agreed to take up in December and has often been cast as one of the greatest threats to the case against Trump.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] theodewere@kbin.social 6 points 7 months ago

so which Uno card is this

[-] astrsk@kbin.social 7 points 7 months ago

House rule, stacking +4 until someone can’t.

this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024

97 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers

1936 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News