Videos tagged with Jack Smith

This video explains the legal process and historical context of impeaching a federal judge, focusing on the recent articles of impeachment filed against U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg. It details the constitutional authorities for impeachment, grounds for removal beyond poor rulings (treason, bribery, abuse of power, criminal activity, serious ethical violations), and the specific allegations against Judge Boasberg related to non-disclosure orders in the 'Operation Arctic Frost' investigation. The video concludes that while the articles may pass the House, conviction in the Senate is highly unlikely due to the required two-thirds majority.

This video provides a detailed breakdown of the Florida documents case ruling that dismissed the superseding indictment against former President Trump. The dismissal was based on two constitutional violations: the Special Counsel's appointment violating the Appointments Clause and his use of indefinite appropriations violating the Appropriations Clause. The speaker emphasizes that the case was dismissed not for the actions taken, but for the unconstitutional methods used in its prosecution.

The US Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision in United States v. Fischer, ruled that the statute 18 USC 1512(c), often used by the DOJ under Jack Smith, does not apply to the January 6th protesters. This statute, originally intended for destroying documents in legal proceedings, was misinterpreted to cover impeding official proceedings. The Court applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis, stating that 'otherwise obstructs' must be interpreted in the context of the preceding list of actions related to tampering with evidence in court cases, not general interference with congressional processes like vote counting.

This video delves into the critical Supreme Court case regarding presidential immunity for Donald Trump's actions as president, particularly concerning January 6th. It explores the constitutional arguments surrounding the separation of powers, the authority of special prosecutors, and the distinction between acts that are inherently wrong (malam in se) versus those that are wrong because they are prohibited (malam prohibitum). The analysis highlights potential outcomes, including dismissal of charges based on prosecutorial authority or a nuanced ruling on immunity.

This video discusses the Supreme Court's oral arguments regarding the application of a financial fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)) in cases involving former President Trump and January 6th protesters. Professor Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, argues that the Department of Justice is misapplying this statute, which originated from the Enron scandal, to political protesters. The discussion also touches upon the potential for selective prosecution and the implications for gun control legislation, specifically referencing Oregon's Ballot Initiative 114.

This video analyzes the legal strategies and procedural complexities surrounding Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims, particularly in relation to the January 6th indictments. It highlights perceived double standards in legal proceedings and discusses the implications of the case for the separation of powers and double jeopardy principles. The speaker, a constitutional attorney, emphasizes the interconnectedness of legal issues and their impact on fundamental rights, including the Second Amendment.

This video discusses a legal argument presented in an amicus brief concerning the constitutionality of Jack Smith's appointment as Special Counsel. The argument posits that Smith's appointment by Merrick Garland is unconstitutional because the office he holds may not exist under federal law, and he may be functioning as a superior officer without Senate confirmation. If successful, this argument could invalidate all of Jack Smith's actions to date.