Did Justice Barrett give Jack Smith a better path to go after Trump?

A piece in the NY Times by Alan Feuer seems to suggest so….

Barrett seemed to have schooled Specail Counsel Smith how he could par down his chareges against the ex-President to only include things Trump did in a ‘private’ non-offical capacity ….

(Private = Intent to help himslef solely)

If that was the case?

The High Court could punt the case back to the Appeals Court or even the trial court , which could then proceed with the case that Smith wants to get going BEFORE the November Election…..

Justice Barret seems to in line for ‘props’ if Specail Counsel Smith follows her advice to get where he and lot of us wants he to be….

 

If the Supreme Court’s hearing on Thursday about former President Donald J. Trump’s claims of executive immunity is any indication of how the court might ultimately rule, the justices could end up helping Mr. Trump in two ways.

The justices signaled that their ruling, when it comes, could lead to some allegations being stripped from the federal indictment charging Mr. Trump with plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

And because the process of determining which accusations to keep and which to throw away could take several months, it would all but kill the chance of Mr. Trump standing trial on charges that he tried to subvert the last election before voters get to decide whether to choose him again in this one.

Near the end of the arguments, however, Justice Amy Coney Barrett abruptly floated a way that prosecutors could maneuver around that time-consuming morass. If the special counsel, Jack Smith, wanted to move more quickly, she said, and avoid the ordeal of lower courts reviewing his indictment line by line, deciding what should stay and what should go, he could always do the job himself….

…

While the Supreme Court did not appear to buy these sweeping claims altogether, the court’s conservative justices did seem interested in the idea that presidents should enjoy some form of criminal immunity. Over and over, they circled around the notion that presidents were probably protected from prosecution for official actions central to their jobs, but could still face charges for conduct that was private.

If the court issues a ruling adopting that standard, some of the specific allegations that Mr. Smith has made might have to be tossed out. While the case would still survive and make its way toward trial, prosecutors might not be able to tell the jury every chapter of the sprawling story they have crafted.

….

When Justice Barrett noted that Mr. Trump turned to “a private attorney” — an apparent reference to Rudolph W. Giuliani — “to spearhead his challenges to the election results,” Mr. Sauer conceded that he was not acting in his capacity as president.

“That sounds private to me,” Mr. Sauer said.

Justice Barrett got a similar response when she pressed Mr. Sauer on Mr. Trump’s involvement in the now-famous scheme to create fake slates of electors. When Justice Barrett reminded Mr. Sauer that the indictment claimed that Mr. Trump was joined in the scheme by personal lawyers and an outside political consultant, Mr. Sauer said, “That’s private.”…

…

But it is also possible the court’s decision could result in extended arguments about dozens of accusations — and possible appeals of those decisions — which could easily take months to complete and could push the trial into 2025.

While some of the conservative justices in particular did not appear to be in any hurry to move the case toward trial, Justice Barrett at least acknowledged the tensions over timing. At one point, she told Michael R. Dreeben, who argued on behalf of Mr. Smith, that “the special counsel has expressed some concern for speed and wanting to move forward.”

It was then that she weighed in with her surprising plan to speed the case up.

Her suggestion?

The special counsel could, in essence, edit his own indictment and “proceed based on the private conduct and drop the official conduct.”

More….

image…Barrett…WSJ….Smith Reuters….