Stephen Miller, one of former President Donald Trump’s key advisors, recently made a statement regarding the Department of Justice’s actions towards President Trump. Miller claimed that the Department of Justice was attempting to imprison President Trump for an excessive amount of time, equivalent to 100 lifetimes, all due to a dispute over a library.
During his appearance on “Jesse Watters Primetime,” Miller discussed the charges brought against Trump by Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith. These charges included “willful retention of national defense information” and obstruction. Furthermore, Trump was accused of instructing a maintenance worker to delete surveillance footage from his Mar-a-Lago resort.
Regarding the separate allegations of bribery and foreign corruption involving President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, Miller expressed his thoughts on the matter.
“All of the answers that we could ever need til the end of time, that would close the book on this forever, are inside that drug-addled brain of Hunter Biden. He is the star witness. Now this isn’t hard for the DOJ. This is the kind of thing that people like James Comey could do in their sleep. You would go to Hunter and you would say, “We have you dead to rights on tax crimes, being an unregistered foreign agent, on sex crimes, on drug crimes, on gun crimes, on every crime under the sun, and we will give you an immunity deal, a non-prosecution agreement, under one condition: you tell us everything and you give us the instructions for every foreign bank account and every transaction involving your father Joe.”
Watters joked, “Yeah but Stephen, what you’re missing is, why do that when you can charge Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker?”
“What is $50 million in bribery and foreign corruption and trading on America’s national security compared to a janitor in a library dispute with the national archives? I mean, good lord, Jesse,” Miller said.
Miller added: “This is why the American people are absolutely just fed up. They are completely at their wits’ end when it comes to DOJ corruption. They are trying to put President Trump in jail for 100 lifetimes over a library dispute with the National Archives! But right in front of us is literally the corruption case of the century, of American history, and it would take is working Hunter Biden for a couple of hours facing real jail time.”
Watters concluded, “Yeah, it’s disgusting. I’ll say this, we’re disgusted with it, the voters are disgusted with it.”
Last week, Special Counsel Jack Smith made a bold move by bypassing federal appeals courts and directly presenting a case involving his prosecution of Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court. This decision carries a risk that may have consequences for Smith in the future.
During the proceedings, Smith raised the question of whether Trump possesses presidential immunity, which could potentially protect him from prosecution for his actions leading up to and during the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.
Furthermore, the justices have also agreed to consider another case brought by two of the rioters, specifically Fischer v. United States. This case revolves around Joseph Fischer, a Capitol rioter, appealing the Justice Department’s interpretation of the felony charge of “obstruction of an official proceeding,” which is the same charge Trump is currently facing in his criminal case.
In addition, Newsweek noted, “Trump is also facing one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and one count of conspiracy against rights. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.”
“The outlet further explained: Because Fischer could potentially upend hundreds of cases, including Trump’s, legal experts said the SCOTUS announcement could give Trump’s team further reason to delay the trial, which is scheduled to begin March 4, 2024.
Trump attorneys have already sought to push the trial date until after the 2024 election. Smith, who has insisted that the proceedings begin on time, filed his own petition with the Supreme Court on Tuesday, asking the justices to weigh in on a critical issue that would keep the case on track with the proposed trial timeline.”
Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney, clarified to Newsweek that the Supreme Court’s decision to review Fischer’s case does not automatically postpone Trump’s case. Nevertheless, Smith might contemplate postponing the trial until after the justices make their ruling on the legitimacy of the two obstruction charges against Trump.
“Even though he has two other counts in the indictment, convictions on the obstruction counts could jeopardize the whole case on appeal if a court were later to find that the jury may have relied on evidence of the obstruction in reaching its decision,” McQuade told the outlet. “Other options are to drop the obstruction counts now and proceed on the other two counts or take his chances with all four counts and move forward.”
A top legal commentator agreed, noting that there is a “good chance” that the Fischer case will cause a delay in the trial date.
“Both the judge and the parties will likely want to see what the Supreme Court has to say before going to trial, or at the very least before instructing the jury,” he told the outlet.
In his Sunday newsletter, Eliason put forward the idea that Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal election interference case, may opt not to proceed with the trial until the Supreme Court delivers its decision on one of the charges constituting half of Trump’s indictment. Eliason suggested that Chutkan could potentially initiate the trial in mid-May, expecting the justices’ ruling on Fischer before giving jury instructions. Even if the trial commences in July, a verdict could still be reached prior to the 2024 election.
Renowned former federal prosecutor and elected state attorney Michael McAuliffe asserted that Smith has structured the indictment against Trump in a manner that would not impede the progress of the federal election case, even if the Supreme Court were to rule against the obstruction charges.
“Each count can stand on its own even though they arise from the same set of factual allegations,” McAuliffe told the outlet. “As such, the Supreme Court’s prospective decision defining the scope of one subsection of the federal obstruction of an official proceeding statute will not derail the special counsel’s prosecution of Donald Trump in the D.C. case.”