OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Special counsel Jack Smith was thwarted again in his attempt to implicate another Republican as he widens his investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol Building after filing charges against former President Donald Trump in association with events that day.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled earlier this month that Smith cannot have access to the phone records of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) because allowing him to obtain that data amounts to a breach of the Republican lawmaker’s immunity under the Constitution’s “speech and debate” clause.
Smith was attempting to access Perry’s communications with colleagues and Trump administration officials. But the clause in question protects members of Congress from being dragged into legal proceedings while they are engaging in their elected official duties.
A CNN roundtable discussed the ruling as well as the overall direction of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Donald Trump — and they were not happy.
Host Wolf Blitzer asked: “Andrew McCabe, you’re the former deputy director of the FBI. Prosecutors are accusing Trump of essentially running the same playbook used to sow doubt with the public about the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, and that’s pretty significant.”
McCabe responded: “It really is, Wolf. It’s interesting, the motion reads in a way that resonates very clearly with the indictment. They actually referred to the indictment. In the motion, they referred to the kind of overarching allegations that the president willfully and knowingly lied about the election for the purpose of altering the result. And they are saying that’s exactly what he’s doing here. He is willfully, knowingly lying about the judge, about witnesses, about the process and the court system in an effort to kind of put his thumb on the scale, to prejudice the jury pool, to intimidate witnesses. And I agree with Jennifer that this is an important next step. It is by no means a gag order. This is not — that’s not what’s under consideration here, but this is elevating the warning citing a specific local court rule and presenting it to him, if she passes it, if she does it and I think she will, he’s going to be officially on notice. And then the next instances, which I’m sure will come, will result in some real consequences.”
WATCH:
Newsmax added:
The decision marked the first time an appeals court has held that lawmakers’ cell phones are subject to the same protections as their physical offices.
It also was the first significant legal setback for Smith in his bid to obtain evidence about involvement by allies of Donald Trump in the then-president’s alleged effort to overturn the 2020 election, Politico reported.
Rao, a Trump appointee, was joined by another Trump appointee, Judge Gregory Katsas, and by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush.
The three-judge panel’s ruling overturns a lower court decision by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who mostly sided with the government’s request to gain access to Perry’s cellphone data.
The appeals court remanded the case back to Howell’s jurisdiction and instructed her to apply the new ruling to any future decision in the case, according to the outlets.
Late last week, Smith’s team again requested the federal judge overseeing Trump’s Jan. 6 case place a limited gag order be placed on the former president.
The prosecutors told a judge that after their initial request for a gag order three weeks ago, the former president has continued to wage “a sustained campaign of prejudicial public statements” against witnesses, prosecutors, and others, The New York Times reported.
U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s Jan. 6 case, has not ruled on the request from three weeks ago, but prosecutors added to that by mentioning statements the former president has made against people like former Vice President Mike Pence, a possible witness.
What prosecutors do not consider in their argument is that the former vice president is not only a potential witness but is also one of the former president’s opponents in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
The Times reported:
The filing noted that Mr. Trump had lashed out at another witness in the case, “the former attorney general” — an apparent reference to William P. Barr — saying he had not done his job after the election “because he was afraid of being impeached.”
Moreover, prosecutors cited a menacing message that Mr. Trump posted on his social media site last week about Gen. Mark A. Milley, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs. After General Milley gave several interviews that were critical of Mr. Trump, the former president suggested that he had committed treason and that in the past he might have faced execution.
“No other criminal defendant would be permitted to issue public statements insinuating that a known witness in his case should be executed,” prosecutor Molly Gaston said. “This defendant should not be, either.”
