Why Trump was indicted again | ReichelLaw.com

it was just over one year ago that special counsel Jack Smith indicted former president Trump over his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election then in July a historic decision by the Supreme Court ruling that presidents have absolute immunity from federal prosecution for official acts and now once again a new superseding indictment filed against Trump by the special counsil so what does this all mean how could this potentially impact Trump's Run for the White House joining me late tonight Mark reel a federal criminal defense attorney Mark great to see you and have you on good to see you again thanks so Mark before we get into the details of this new indictment I want to First have you talk to our viewers about the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity and how that impacts Trump's case okay first of all it was it was it's Watershed something like this has never come out of the Supreme Court before we've never decided it in history of the nation since 1788 we've never decided this issue so they they they found three areas number one the core function core function of a president we just don't want to second guess that but that's things like treaties involving the military and some of the other real big duties that are the core functions of the executive of the nation the second thing are official actions it's not core duties those are official actions because the Constitution itself just lists a few core duties but the official actions those are something that also get immunity but it's presumptive it can take a lot of evidence to overcome that uh overcome that immunity that presumption of complete immunity and finally number three if they're not official acts if they're not core acts they are private acts that's something there's no civil or criminal immunity for the Supreme Court could outlist every single action a president takes during the day and during the week and so forth as the nation's top executive that would be considered an official act they let that for the lower courts so this indictment seems like it's a slim down version what exactly did Jack Smith do how different is this version from the original two things had a new grand jury a completely new grand jury so the old one heard everything everything even things that weren't you know going to come in in evidence later to trial this one it was slimmed down and it heard just things they argue are either private Acts or official acts but they can they they've overcome the presumption to prove they were so far removed so far removed from the official acts of a president that they're now private acts they specifically went over and over by the the fact stating in the indict M first of all removing any reference to the attorney general or official government actors besides the president and called him a candidate throughout the indictment called vice president Pence at the time a candidate so the conspiracy they're arguing in this indictment was about a bunch of candidates for office so how do you think this is going to stand up against scrutiny or or do you think judge chuin is going to say that uh no you know this is not going to hold because of presidential immunity and he's immune from x y and z I think uh I think Jack smth Smith has done a good job it's a really difficult job to do I think they're going to be able to proceed they're just not going to proceed they're not going to go forward until after we've decided as a nation until the votes are counted there's no way there's going to be a trial that takes place before then you know if you were on Trump's defense team how would you defend him right now what would be the strategy I would do everything I could number one to delay it obviously for a variety of reasons and number two I would try to I would try to get Jack Smith to make something that's prejudicial in the court okay something prejudicial enough that is improper that I would immediately appeal to the US Supreme Court and again assert interlocutory that means in the meantime to say oh my gosh I can't get a fair trial at least pause this and consider it because otherwise there you can't unring the Bell if I go forward with a trial which we later determine is unfair there's nothing you could do to unring that Bell so I think that's what I would do if I was representing that former president Trump this case was uh really important to the American people because it really touched on uh the state of democracy in this country the attempts to potentially overturn the results of an election what exactly were the charges against Trump how many how much of those are still seen in this new indictment the same four charges are there there's just new evidence new theories that are used it's still defrauding Americans of their vote number one defrauding Americans of their vote basically number two and number three is obstruction of justice specifically and this is where they changed it they said he specifically wanted them to get these to get these certificates the actual physical physical certificates were put in boxes and taken out by the legislators when they ran out this indictment now alleges Trump told these people and Trump wanted to go in and have those taken that's a new allegation so that's the obstruction of justice is to take the certificates the Electoral certificates and then finally number four is a conspiracy to deprive you of Rights and the right specifically to a fair election so that's the fourth charge they're the same but they've come at them with different theories and different evidence all private actors most of this evidence says private actors did this and Trump did it in its private capacity specifically like he went to his dining room table left the Oval Office and made tweets you know giving directions and so forth not in the Oval Office they're saying that's a private act so where do we go from here from a legal legal standpoint there'll be some there'll be some pre-trial motions and some litigation I don't know if there'll be a hearing at all a big hearing where we hear some evidence like a pre-trial hearing you know with evidences over wor I don't think we're going to get that I think it's just going to be paused um I can see that the Trump has a great argument to pause it there's an informal rule that's been forever that within 60 days of an election a major election we don't file new charges against someone that's going to be their argument here uh but we'll see this judge you know she's a a federal judge federal judges have awesome power she can say look in 35 days I want to have a hearing about what evidence comes in and that evidence can really inform the electorate and possibly change Minds possibly change Minds after hearing some of this evidence either way yeah 69 days left to the election so we'll see what kind of impact this could potentially have attorney Mark reel thank you so much great to see you my friend thank you