{"id":13118,"date":"2023-12-21T01:46:36","date_gmt":"2023-12-21T01:46:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/2023\/12\/21\/red-state-ags-blast-special-counsel-push-for-scotus-to-rush-trump-case-partisan-interests\/"},"modified":"2023-12-21T01:46:36","modified_gmt":"2023-12-21T01:46:36","slug":"red-state-ags-blast-special-counsel-push-for-scotus-to-rush-trump-case-partisan-interests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/2023\/12\/21\/red-state-ags-blast-special-counsel-push-for-scotus-to-rush-trump-case-partisan-interests\/","title":{"rendered":"Red state AGs blast special counsel push for SCOTUS to rush Trump case: \u2018partisan interests\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

FIRST ON FOX<\/strong> \u2013 A group of Republican state attorneys general ripped Special Counsel Jack Smith\u2019s request to the Supreme Court to expedite former President Trump\u2019s immunity case as \u2018driven by partisan interests, not the public interest.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n

Earlier this month, Smith petitioned the high court to decide Trump\u2019s immunity claims in his case facing charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Smith asked for expedited consideration of the case to essentially have the high court take over jurisdiction before the lower federal courts have fully decided the matter, bypassing an entire appellate process though a special rule \u2013 Rule 11 \u2014 reserved for emergencies.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But 19 attorneys general filed a brief to the high court Tuesday arguing that Smith\u2019s rationale is politically motivated to keep Trump\u2019s trial ahead of the 2024 election in November.<\/p>\n

\u2018The United States\u2019 petition repeatedly proclaims \u2013 but never explains why \u2013 \u2018[i]t is of imperative public importance that respondent\u2019s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent\u2019s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,\u2019\u2019 the brief states.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u2018That silence is both telling and troubling, suggesting that the United States\u2019 demand for extraordinary and immediate relief is driven by partisan interests, not the public interest,\u2019 it says.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Rule 11 says that a petition to the high court to review a case pending in an appeals court, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of \u2018such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.\u2019<\/p>\n

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who led the brief for the GOP states, told Fox News Digital in a statement that the special counsel\u2019s petition \u2018is strong evidence of a political prosecution designed to decide the 2024 election.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018In November of last year, Joe Biden vowed that Donald Trump would never become president again. Then, in August 2023, more than 30 months after the events alleged in the indictment, the federal government indicted Trump and now seeks to rush him to trial in March 2024. But the former President is entitled to appeal the trial court\u2019s order denying him presidential immunity,\u2019 said Marshall.<\/p>\n

\u2018Thus, worried about losing his trial date, the special counsel is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to jump into the fray. But he gives no reason why the public interest demands a rushed trial, which suggests the real reason is to swing the presidential election,\u2019 stated Marshall.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u2018The Court should not play along,\u2019 he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Smith wants the Supreme Court to answer, \u2018whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.\u2019<\/p>\n

Smith argues that the \u2018ordinary process\u2026 may not result in a final decision for many months,\u2019 which \u2018might prevent this Court from hearing and deciding the case this Term.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n

But the AGs maintain that \u2018[t]hat\u2019s not an argument. It\u2019s a tautology: If the Court does not \u2018review now,\u2019 it cannot \u2018review now.\u2019 But why is it imperative to review now?\u2019<\/p>\n

The top state prosecutors went on to reference when the high court did allow for expedited proceedings \u2013 for example, the Iranian hostage crisis in the \u201980s and the steel production crisis during the Korean War.<\/p>\n

In contrast with Trump\u2019s case, they said, \u2018The government has not shown an urgent need in this case.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u2018Is there a war, a hostage negotiation, or a border crisis at issue? No. And the petition cites no authority for its position that some prosecutions must go so quickly that a criminal defendant loses his right to an orderly appeal,\u2019 adding that, \u2018the government\u2019s recitation of the trial date is quite meaningless as every prosecution that goes to trial has a trial date.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018All criminal defendants have a right to a fair and orderly process. The gravity of this particular prosecution is all the more reason to ensure that right,\u2019 the AGs write.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u2018For reasons unknown, the prosecution has sought and secured an expedited trial and an expedited appeal. But this Court\u2019s Rule 11 requires more than a vague government interest in speedy trials. The United States has not shown that its plan to take President Trump to trial on March 4, 2024, \u2018is of such imperative public importance as\u2026 to require immediate\u2019 intervention by this Court,\u2019 the Republicans said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The brief was submitted by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.<\/p>\n\n

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

FIRST ON FOX \u2013 A group of Republican state attorneys general ripped Special Counsel Jack Smith\u2019s request to the Supreme Court to expedite former President Trump\u2019s immunity case as \u2018driven by partisan interests, not the public interest.\u2019\u00a0 Earlier this month, Smith petitioned the high court to decide Trump\u2019s immunity claims in his case facing charges <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":13119,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-13118","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-politics"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13118","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13118"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13118\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13119"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}