JR Afternoon with Chris Renwick
Analyzing Jack Smith's Dropping Jan. 6th Charges Against Trump
So special counsel Jack Smith has dropped the federal election subversion case as it relates to the 2020 and in January 6 cases. He said that the department's position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. The outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant. So certainly in one breath saying it's it's this is what the Constitution requires, but we had the goods on Donald Trump is what Jack Smith is saying. Is this a surprise? Is this this seems like this is where it was headed? Let's bring in Todd flood to break this all down. Todd, it's great to have you. What did you make of the news today that broke that Jack Smith is filing to drop these cases? No surprise. Yeah. It was imminent that that case would go all the case for case would go to the way that the fact of the matter is that you can't prosecute a sitting president. You can't unduly burden him or encumber him while he's trying to fill the nation duties having him sit through a criminal aspect obviously is crazy when you're in that position. So there's no surprise here and the Supreme Court kind of broke it down for all of us in the immunity case and the basically three buckets. There is bucket one where there isn't immunity for someone that's campaigning for president but is not the sitting president. So that's not the case here. Two, there's absolute immunity for a sitting president when he's doing his job is core as they put it in quotation marks as core duties so the low line fruit for us Chris would be like pardoning somebody who are recognizing the foreign power. Those are low line fruit but that absolute immunity for things you are doing within your office. Then there's immunity, absolute immunity but there is a rebuttable presumption the government can say well the decision he made by us prosecuting him is not harming basically the country. That's a very heavy burden to meet and the Supreme Court said we really don't need to get there. We're not going to answer that question here's where you're at. He has absolute immunity if he's exercising those duties for his first job or his post and his core responsibilities. So this case the clock ran out on Jack Smith. The game's over as far as you know the time so President Trump won and there is no way on this green earth that he would be prosecuted for a federal case because it goes against all the policies that have been long-standing. So Judge Tonya Chutkin here now with the balls in her court there's no reason that she would act in a way that would go against what Jack Smith is filing for. We have a separation of powers right so she's in the judicial branch that Jack Smith has in his power the prosecutorial standpoint she can't intervene on his case. She can't step in because that's his power, his power through the legislature and obviously the judge can't step in and say no you must prosecute him, no that's not her role nor her duty. I don't want to throw too much of a curveball at you here but the Manhattan case is really interesting because Alvin Bragg is treating this case like when I go to Costco to buy Eggo Waffles for my kids and we're not going to eat the entire box at once. They got to be frozen. We got to put them on ice or they go bad. It's the same way with this case in Alvin Bragg's eyes. It seems like he's content on just shelving this thing until four years down the road and then when Donald Trump gets out of office sentencing him, is there any sort of precedent for that? Is that even possible? What do you make of that case as well? The state case is different and it's to me, you know, of all the cases that were brought this is the case that I've said before with you and I and others on our station that I think is the weakest because they made this misdemeanor and combined it with the federal statute to make it a felony. To sentence him, the sentence four years after seems crazy to me. Now is there precedence? Well, yeah, there's precedence when someone goes on the lamb and what we call capious. So you're about to be sentenced in, you broke off your tether and you went on the run for four years and no one could find you, then you get caught, picked up and it's four or five years later. Yeah, you get sentenced on an underlying felony for what you were convicted, but this is far different. It's crazy. Everybody. Everybody will know where Donald Trump is every moment of every day for the next four years. Right. Right. This is crazy. Why would you put our country? Why would you put our nation in any kind of peril or jeopardy or thought process of trying to have this way on the president of the United States of America that you want? Dismiss the case. Dismiss it. He's already paid a penalty for having to sit and go through this massive amount of, you know, trial and tribulations of this thing. Enough already. So he has one of three buckets. He can do. He can sentence. He can delay attempt or he can dismiss. So I don't see him sentencing unless he wants to say, yeah, I'm going to sentence him to time served and find and be done with it. Have to delay it, which is crazy to me and or dismiss, which seems to me to be the obvious gig. We hate setting aside jury verdicts. We hate doing it. It happens. It happens when there's jury misconduct or there was prosecutorial misconduct or the life we have set aside a jury verdict. But it's rare. We hate to, we hate to disturb those things in this case. It's the exception. Yeah. And is the, is the Georgia case the same way? I mean, that never really got off the ground quite like the, the Manhattan case did, but is that going, by the way, side two in your, in your mind? It is. Yeah. There's, there's more, there's more congestion on that case than there is in many others, just from the standpoint of the special assistant prosecutor that came in and had the relationship with the elected official. So the fact of the matter, she was signing the vouchers for him to get paid. There's so much in that case. It's crazy. What a world. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But the end of the day, I think if we had common sense, like it or not, wherever you sit, the president of the United States of America has to focus in on one major thing. That is being president of the United States of America. That's it. All right. Nation comes first right now. Our citizens come first and that's what he should be focusing on. Yeah. No doubt. That is Todd Flood, a flood law, of course you can hear him on behind the bench every third Wednesday of the month at seven o'clock here on WJ air Todd. Thank you, my friend. Appreciate your insight as always appreciate you, Chris. Be well. Yeah. You do the same. Happy Thanksgiving. 800-859-0957-800-859-0WJ are that's there if you want to weigh in on it. I'd love to hear your thoughts. And meanwhile, coming up at 335 I've got some audio from Harry and 10, one of the pollsters on CNN. Does a really nice job. I got to tell you and he did he has some numbers comparing Donald Trump's win in 2008 or excuse me, 2016 to his win in 2024 eight years later and the tenor, the view, the feeling among the American people back in 2016 compared to what people are feeling now. I'll tell you, they are, I don't know if they're, if we would classify them under surprising, but they are, they're eye opening. I mean, they are pretty stunning numbers. So I've got audio from Harry and 10 will play that coming up and I want to get your thoughts. And in my question is, I mean, it's very simple. It's why, why? How? So we'll do that. I'll play that audio. We'll get you your calls next here on Jay afternoon.
November 25, 2024 ~ Chris and Attorney Todd Flood analyze the dismissal of Jan. 6th charges against Donald Trump by Jack Smith.