“Jack Smith Should Get Moving” Analysts Predict Pre-Election Hearings Despite Supreme Court Ruling

 “Jack Smith Should Get Moving” Analysts Predict Pre-Election Hearings Despite Supreme Court Ruling

Photo: Robin Van Lonkhuijsen/AFP via Getty Images

After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Monday ruling protecting Donald Trump from some of the charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith related to the 2020 election, legal analysts predict it is still possible to have some hearings before the election.

Speaking to MSNBC on Tuesday, former federal prosecutor Kristy Greenberg and legal analyst Anthony Coley suggested that despite the timeline challenges with motions, an evidentiary hearing could reveal significant information about Trump to the public.

Greenberg noted that Trump faces timeline issues in multiple cases he believes he can overturn or eliminate. The hush money case, in which he was convicted of 34 criminal charges, occurred before his presidency, yet he is still seeking to have the verdict dismissed.

The legal experts argued that the cases overseen by Smith — the election interference case and the classified documents case — remain active. “One, it should happen before the election,” said Greenberg, emphasizing the need for urgency. “Jack Smith should get moving. Two, I think it should be very illuminating. I think he should hold nothing back”, reported Raw Story.

“There are four buckets of conduct that are still very much on the table,” Greenberg continued. “And frankly, it was very surprising that the Supreme Court didn’t just say it is private conduct. You got the conversations between former President Trump and Mike Pence, which are about his role, not as an executive branch function, but as the vice president of the senate and the certification of counting electoral votes.”

Host Katy Tur interrupted, mentioning that the court specifically excluded that piece of evidence, calling it presumed immunity. Greenberg explained, “But even in the opinion, the Supreme Court says the president has no role whatsoever in that process.”

Greenberg argued that executive authority is not harmed by examining Trump’s private conversations and interactions with state officials, emphasizing that “the president doesn’t have any role with how the states decide their electors.”

Greenberg predicted that Jack Smith would “come out swinging,” presenting witnesses and documentary evidence. She noted that the Supreme Court’s decision on the admissibility of official evidence does not apply to evidentiary hearings, where “loose rules and evidentiary rules apply.”

“We should get to see a mini-trial here,” Greenberg asserted. “We should get to see the evidence before the election, and the American people should learn what happened.”

Coley highlighted the importance of timing, stating, “These are not one or two days of hearings. We’re talking multiple days over weeks and very likely soon after Labor Day.” He indicated that there is a possibility of having some semblance of a “trial” before the election.

Related post