Federal Appeals Court Shuts Down Jack Smith Again

LISTEN HERE:

A federal appeals court has created a obstacle in front of special counsel Jack Smith in his pursuit of truth regarding the events of January 6, 2021.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on Wednesday that Smith’s quest to access the cell phone records of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) would be in violation of the lawmaker’s immunity protected under the Constitution’s “speech and debate” clause.

The clause, which shields legislators from legal action while performing their official duties, was deemed applicable to Perry’s communications with colleagues and Executive Branch officials.

U.S. District Judge Neomi Rao stated in the opinion issued last week that a member’s assessment of relevant information for legislation concerning federal election procedures qualifies as a textbook legislative act, highlighting the importance of such deliberations.

The recent decision from the appeals court signifies the first time that legislators’ cellphones have been accredited with the same protections as their physical offices.

This ruling serves as a significant setback for Jack Smith, as he strives to gather evidence regarding the alleged attempts made by allies of Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election.

Notably, the three-judge panel consisted of two Trump appointees, Judge Neomi Rao and Judge Gregory Katsas, as well as Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, a nominee by President George H.W. Bush.

The panel overturned a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who primarily favored the government’s request for access to Perry’s cell phone information, determining that informal fact-finding can indeed be considered a legislative act depending on the circumstances.

The higher court has decided to return the case to Judge Beryl Howell for her to reevaluate her original decision in light of the new rules set forth by the appeals court.

In recent developments, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has sent a letter to Jack Smith, requesting documents and materials related to accusations of illicit pressure tactics in Smith’s investigation and indictments of former President Donald Trump.

Jordan, an Ohio Republican, demands transparency in claims regarding the alleged improper pressure exerted by one of Smith’s senior prosecutors, Jay Bratt, during a meeting with Stanley Woodward, the attorney representing a defendant indicted by Smith.

The allegations stem from a meeting where Bratt seemingly implied that cooperating with the Office of the Special Counsel may benefit Woodward’s prospects of securing a judgeship. In response to these allegations, Jordan has set a deadline of September 21 for Smith to comply with his request.

The letter from Jordan cites an earlier incident in November 2022 when Bratt and other prosecutors convened a meeting with Woodward to discuss sensitive matters regarding the cooperation of Walt Nauta, who is accused of moving classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

It is suggested that during the meeting, Bratt applied pressure on Woodward by insinuating potential consequences if Nauta did not cooperate, and he also alluded to the fact that Woodward’s application for a judgeship would receive more favorable consideration from the Biden Administration if Nauta became a cooperating witness for the Special Counsel against President Trump.