The Donald Trump case against Jack Smith: a dead bang obstruction of justice after the January 6 arrest and the Mar-a-Lago case

The latest adverse developments for Trump in the January 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases came with the ex-president still waiting in the investigation led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg centering on a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump had wrongly predicted earlier this month that he’d be arrested last week and called for protests.

Three crushing legal blows against Trump and his lawyers in investigations conducted by special counsel Jack Smith threaten to expose with fresh clarity his conduct in the run up to the US Capitol insurrection and his hoarding of classified documents.

But after the special counsel’s latest victory, he will be keen to lock down Pence’s retelling for investigators, ahead of any potential indictment. And only Pence can give full details of any private conversations or calls with Trump. He might be able to provide fresh evidence about whether Trump was committing a crime by pressuring him to overturn the election, for instance.

Former President Donald Trump is appealing a court ruling that would force several of his former aides, including Mark Meadows, to answer questions before a grand jury as part of the criminal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

These rulings came amid another win for the special counsel last week when Trump’s lead defense attorney, Evan Corcoran, testified again to the grand jury after he was ordered to reappear by an appeals court. There could be important evidence related to whether Trump hid classified documents or tried to obstruct the authorities trying to get them back.

I think that Justice is under some pressure to make a decision. To me, based on the way it is shaping up, it is a dead bang obstruction of justice case,” Jones said, underscoring that a case against Trump might be made not just for the mishandling of classified material but for possible false statements to the government about such documents.

The grand jury hearing the case will not consider it again this week, as sources familiar with the proceedings said, adding more intrigue to the anticipation after Trump issued a statement. The grand jury heard from the former head of the company that publishes the Enquirer on Monday, which might suggest that prosecutors were trying to solidify their case. He was a key player in negotiating the payment in an alleged scheme that previously landed Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, in jail.

On yet another legal front, a prosecutor in Fulton County, Georgia, said at the end of January that charging decisions were “imminent” in an investigation into his efforts to overturn Biden’s victory in the crucial swing state in November 2020. CNN reported that prosecutors are considering charges of racketeering and conspiracy.

Not only is Trump apparently in severe jeopardy of becoming the first former president to be indicted, but his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 – while potentially being criminally charged – raises the possibility of an extraordinary political uproar. Trump is sure to make things worse by fanning the flames of a situation that is guaranteed to make things worse for the country. At a campaign rally in Texas last weekend, the ex-president folded various probes against him into a single false conceit: that the Biden administration is seeking to weaponize the justice system against him to steal the 2024 election.

The ruling was interesting in its legal and constitutional implications. It’s unclear for now at least which exact questions Pence could decline to answer under oath.

In a GOP presidential debate, he could argue that he stood up to the Biden administration, which is potentially useful because of the legal technicalities. He might have expanded the scope of his office in order to establish new interpretations of the Speech or Debate Clause. The latter question would have to be considered definitive by the Supreme Court or the appeals court after consideration of Speech or Debate Clause cases.

“The requirements of my testimony going forward are a subject of our review right now, and I’ll have more to say about that in the days ahead,” Pence told Newsmax’s Greta Van Susteren.

The former vice president also said in his recently published book that he asked his general counsel for a briefing on the procedures of the Electoral Count Act after Trump, in a December 5, 2020, phone call, “mentioned challenging the election results in the House of Representatives for the first time.”

The mid-March ruling from US District Judge Beryl Howell, who was then the chief judge of DC’s federal trial court, is one of several defeats the former president has suffered in his efforts to use executive privilege claims to block the testimony of former aides and allies in the Justice Department’s special counsel investigations.

Last year, former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his deputy, Patrick Philbin, appeared for additional questioning in front of the grand jury after Trump lost an apparent executive privilege challenge aimed at their appearance.

The litigation that preceded it played out in secret, and Howell’s order was issued under seal. The docket of the appeal does not provide much information, and it is unclear if the parties in the case are identified. But it says a notice of appeal has been filed.