도널드 트럼프의 재판: 지연 및 법적 의미 설명

### 트럼프의 워싱턴 DC 재판: 대법원 판결 탐색을 위한 3주 연기 요청
* ⏳ 잭 스미스가 이끄는 검찰은 대법원의 면책 특권 판결의 영향을 파악하기 위해 **트럼프의 워싱턴 DC 재판을 3주 연기**해 달라고 요청했습니다.
* 🏛 추인 판사는 **8월 9일을 브리핑 일정**으로, **8월 16일을 현황 청문회 일정**으로 잡았지만 스미스는 **8월 30일로 기한을 연장**하고 청문회를 연기해 달라고 요청했습니다.
* 👨 이 연기 조치는 **검찰이 대법원 판결에 따른 새로운 법적 환경**을 탐색하기 위해 법무부의 다양한 구성 요소와 협의할 수 있도록 하기 위한 것입니다.
* ⚖ 대법원의 판결에 따르면 **대통령은 공무 수행 중 저지른 범죄에 대해 면책특권**을 가지므로 검찰은 공식적인 행위와 비공식적인 행위를 구분해야 하는 복잡한 과제를 안게 됩니다.
* 🗓 선거 전에는 재판이 열리지 않을 것으로 예상되지만, **추인 판사는 이전에 캐논 판사의 법정에서 지연된 것과는 대조적으로 신속하게 사건을 진행**하고 있습니다.
* 📜 캐논 판사가 기각한 기밀 문서 사건은 **항소심에서 복권될 가능성이 높**으며, 다른 판사에게 돌아가 법적 절차를 계속 진행할 수 있습니다.
* 🏛 제11순회항소법원이 캐논 판사의 판결을 뒤집는다면 이 사건은 **원심 법원으로 돌아가 다른 판사가 맡게 될 수도 있으며, 대법원에 추가로 상고할 가능성**도 있습니다.
* 🎙 글렌 커쉬너와 브라이언 타일러 코헨이 트럼프의 형사 사건에서 향후 진행될 수 있는 법적 조치를 강조하며 **법적 상황을 분석**합니다.

잭 스미스는 대법원의 면책특권 판결의 복잡성을 헤쳐나가기 위해 트럼프의 재판을 연기해 달라고 요청합니다.

You're watching the legal breakdown, Glenn. We've got a consequential update in Donald Trump's DC trial. So, Jack Smith has asked for a 3-week delay while they consider the impact of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling on this case here in DC. Trump, of course, didn't oppose Smith's request, so we're going to see that 3-week delay. So, first off, isn't the whole point of what's happening right now, by virtue of this case being sent back to the trial court, exactly to determine where the Supreme Court ruling applies? So, why is Jack Smith filing a motion seeking to delay when that's literally the whole point of what they're litigating? Yeah, so Brian, the Supreme Court said, Judge Chuin and any other judge who takes up this issue, you have to figure out how to implement this basically unconstitutional ruling we handed down, saying that a president is immune for crimes he commits if those crimes are committed as part of a president's official duties. It's a

bizarre, and I maintain unconstitutional ruling, so Jack Smith has to figure out, okay, what arguments am I going to make, how do we go about figuring out what we're going to claim as prosecutors should enjoy immunity, and what are we going to claim as unofficial conduct, as private conduct that does not enjoy immunity under this new Supreme Court ruling. Judge Chuin set a briefing schedule. She said, I want you to submit to me a proposed plan for how we're going to go about litigating and deciding all of this stuff. These are uncharted waters here, and I want you to file a joint plan with the defense by August 9, and then I'm going to have a status hearing on August 16, where we're going to sit down in court and we're going to talk about the plan that the parties have proposed. Jack Smith, in coordination with lots of other folks at the Department of Justice, is trying to figure out how in the world do we go about implementing and litigating under

sort of this new legal world order that the Supreme Court has just set out. And he said, Judge, I appreciate it. I appreciate that you wanted the status report. You wanted us to give you a plan by August 9. But I'm consulting with lots of different components of the Department of Justice. We're trying to figure out the best way forward, and we need a little bit more time. So what we did, says Jack Smith, is we coordinated with Donald Trump's lawyers. They didn't oppose a request for more time. Shocking, right? They always want to delay matters, and rarely do prosecutors want to delay matters. Prosecutors want to get in court as soon as possible and litigate cases. So Jack Smith said, Listen, can you bump the August 9 date to August 30, vacate that, is cancel the August 16th status hearing where you were going to have us all come in and talk about the plan we proposed, and set the hearing for sometime after August 30? But look, Jack Smith wants to get it right. Nobody

understands this new legal world order that the Supreme Court has sort of inflicted on the criminal justice system. So, this is not a surprising request, a little bit sort of dispiriting because we want to get in the court, we want to get some guidance about what's going to go on and whether these cases are going to be able to move toward trial. But it looks like we're going to have to wait another few weeks now. I actually see some silver lining in this because when you have the judge, Judge Chuin, in this case who is moving quicker than even the prosecution can keep up, that's heartening. After watching what's happened in Judge Cannon's courtroom for months and months and months and the delays and the dilatory tactics that she was leaning into, to see then Judge Chuin moving so quickly that even Jack Smith can't keep up, I find that pretty heartening. It is heartening, and I've said it before, Brian, we've talked about it, Judge Chuin don't

play. She understands the urgency of the moment. She's going to give Donald Trump's lawyers all the time they need so they can zealously represent their client's interest. But she's going to keep this thing on a fast track, and she's going to keep the attorneys on a tight leash. Now look, all hope is lost that we're going to have a criminal trial before the election, but she's going to keep this thing moving apace. And as soon as Donald Trump loses the election—and he will—I have a feeling the whole complexion of these criminal cases will change. Because you know, then there will no longer be the threat, you know, the prosecutors and the courts will no longer be laboring under the threat that Donald Trump will retake the reins of governmental power and get rid of all of the criminal cases against him. So you know, we're going to have to be a little bit more patient as we move in the direction of a trial. Right at this point, it's not really even about delays.

anymore because we're not going to see this case go to trial before the election anyway. So at least we can move forward knowing that that whole question is moot, but that we have a judge in Judge Chuin who is willing to move quickly so that if and when Donald Trump does lose this November election, we still have a judge in place that's ready to take this case to trial as quickly as it should be going to trial. Yeah, and don't forget, you know, Judge Cannon is certainly the weak spot among the four judges: Judge Maran, Judge Chuin, Judge Cannon, and then down in Georgia, Judge McAfee. But you know, I think Judge Cannon's ruling throwing out Donald Trump's classified documents case will probably be reversed on appeal. And then the silver lining there is when the case comes back, it might not remain with Judge Cannon, and that would be a good thing in the interests of justice. So to that exact point, Donald Trump has been repeating this line over and over, as recently as the most recent

emergency press conference that he called, which in reality was just his desperate way of trying to claw back some intention from the media because everybody is giving organic attention to KLA Harris and Tim wals, and he keeps repeating this claim that he actually won the classified documents case. Can I have your reaction to that? Yeah, you know what, he won a minimal battle, and it is a procedural battle. You know, if this was a game of chess, you know, maybe he took his opponent, one of his opponent's important chess pieces, but he has not won the war. In fact, I believe he will lose the war because one way or another, the classified documents case is coming back. Whether it comes back with special counsel Jack Smith at the helm or with special counsel Jack Smith being hired by the Department of Justice, being made a prosecutor proper rather than a special counsel, and having a sitting US attorney basically take Jack Smith's position, it's coming back. And I think everybody should rest assured in the knowledge and the comfort that

Donald Trump will be tried for the classified documents case. One quick question on that, obviously, Judge Cannon relied on this little wink and nod from Clarence Thomas that all of a sudden, apropos of nothing, that special counsels aren't constitutional, even though they've been used since the late 1800s in this country, and their use has been upheld by various courts and various court rulings. But still, she decided to take the law into her own hands and rewrite constitutional law and just decide under herself that special counsels aren't allowed anymore. Is this going to go up to the Supreme Court, or is it going to go back to the trial court after it's litigated by the 11th Circuit? It's probably going up to the Supreme Court one way or another, because if the 11th Circuit reverses Judge Cannon's ruling, tossing out the case, and I assume and I suspect they will, then you know Donald Trump is going to appeal it up to the Supreme Court. Doesn't mean

the Supreme Court has to take it. They may very well reject it, and I'll tell you why I think they would reject it in a minute. But if the 11th Circuit rules that, you know what, all other courts were wrong, Judge Cannon was right, we're going to affirm the opinion, then I have a strong sense that Jack Smith will appeal it to the Supreme Court. Here, Brian, is why I say I don't even think the Supreme Court will necessarily take it up, will grant review of this issue. When, as you say, Clarence Thomas issues this little, you know, love letter apropos of nothing, saying, Hey, even though this is not an issue in the presidential immunity case, I'm going to write a separate opinion to say, 'Hey, Judge Cannon, why don't you say special counsel's not a lawful thing?' And that will give you the opportunity to just throw the case out. You know, that is basically outright corruption. It's unethical. It's misconduct. It's an abuse of a Supreme Court Justice's discretion. However, Brian, when Clarence Thomas wrote that separate

opinion in the presidential immunity case. Not a single other Supreme Court Justice joined in that opinion. And when other justices agree with a proposition in a separately written opinion, they will ordinarily join it. So, if two or three or four other Supreme Court Justices joined Clarence Thomas's separate opinion, then I would say, well, there's a good chance that they're going to want to take this issue up. But they kind of, you know, ran away from it like it's a dead skunk. So, it may very well be that even if Donald Trump tries to bubble that issue up to the Supreme Court, they're like, uh, no sport, you're out of luck. That was only Clarence's idea, we're not buying into it. You know you have jumped the shark when even Samuel Leo doesn't sign on to your farri fever dream. Let's finish off with this, Glenn. Let's say, for example, and this is what I think the most likely scenario is, so you know this and 10 bucks will buy you a foot long.

at Subway, but let's say for example that the 11th Circuit reverses Judge Cannon's ruling and it gets sent back to the trial court, presumably under a different judge, perhaps. How do we know whether a trial court's going to pick it up and then that process will be stayed pending an appeal to the Supreme Court? How do we know where it goes first? Who makes that decision as to whether everything stops pending the Supreme Court's ultimate decision or whether the trial court can continue litigating until the Supreme Court ultimately decides to rule? Well, anytime a case is in an appellate posture, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction. A trial court can't do anything. So, but let's assume the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses Judge Cannon's dismissal, reinstates the case, sends it back down, and Donald Trump files asking the Supreme Court to take the issue for review. Donald Trump will also have to file a motion seeking a stay first from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and then

potentially from the Supreme Court while the Supreme Court decides whether they want to take it up or not. If they do take it up, I can promise you they will also issue a stay, and the trial court will not be able to do any work on the case until the Supreme Court resolves the issue. Okay, and an actual last question here. When do we find out whether, if they send it back to the trial court, whether it would be Judge Cannon or a different judge? Probably upon remand. What do I mean by that? Let's assume the 11th Circuit does the right thing in accordance with the law and in accordance with every other court that's ever decided the issue, and they reverse Judge Cannon. They say, No, you had no basis to throw it out because special counsel is just fine, is lawful, and is constitutional. It could be that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in its supervisory capacity over the trial courts in that jurisdiction down in Florida, they say, And we're remanding it to be assigned to a new judge because

Judge Cannon has now been, you know, reversed and potentially abused her judicial discretion in Donald Trump's favor over and over and perhaps over again a third time. So, the appellate court can direct that it go back to a judge whose impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned. So, that is what I would assume might happen. And do they do that in response to a request from Jack Smith, or would they do it like supon? They could do it in either posture. I've seen appellate courts do it when it was requested. I've also seen appellate courts do it when there was an issue that the appellate court had to resolve that involved the impartiality or lack of impartiality of the trial court judge that was part of the appeal. And I've seen appellate courts just direct that it be remanded and assigned to a new trial court judge. Okay, well, a lot to look forward to here, and we will, of course, stay on top of this case as it continues to work through Judge.

chuin courtroom and the D the Florida prosecution, as well as that continues to work its way through the 11 circuit. So, plenty to look forward to as far as Donald Trump's prosecutions are concerned. For those watching right now, if you want to stay on top of this stuff, please make sure to subscribe. The links to both of our channels are right here on the screen. I'm Brian teller Cohen, and I'm Glenn kersner. You're watching the legal breakdown. [Music]

BREAKING: CONSEQUENTIAL update in Trump’s DC trial

Brian Tyler Cohen

대법원 판결로 인한 트럼프의 워싱턴 DC 재판 지연

잭 스미스는 대법원의 면책특권 판결의 영향을 고려하기 위해 도널드 트럼프의 워싱턴 DC 재판을 3주 연기해 달라고 요청했습니다.

이 판결에 따라 재판부는 공무 중 저지른 범죄에 대한 대통령 면책특권 적용 여부를 결정해야 합니다.

트럼프의 변호사들은 새로운 법적 체계에 따른 소송 계획을 조율할 시간을 더 확보하기 위해 연기에 반대하지 않았습니다.

추인 판사가 트럼프의 형사 사건에 미친 영향

추인 판사는 도널드 트럼프의 형사 사건을 신속하게 처리하고 있어 캐논 판사의 법정에서 보였던 지연과는 긍정적인 대조를 이루고 있습니다.

현재 상황의 긴급성을 인식하고 있고 대선 전 재판이 이루어질 가능성은 낮아 보이지만 추인 판사는 사건을 신속하게 처리하기 위해 최선을 다하고 있습니다.

선거 결과에 따라 형사 사건의 역학 관계가 달라질 수 있으며, 항소심에서 캐논 판사의 판결이 번복되어 판사가 바뀔 가능성도 있습니다.

트럼프의 기밀문서 사건: 전쟁이 아닌 절차적 승리

트럼프는 최근 기자회견에서 자신이 기밀문서 사건에서 승소했다고 주장하며 언론의 관심을 되찾기 위해 필사적으로 노력했습니다.

그러나 승소는 절차상 최소한의 승리였으며, 이 사건은 다시 재판으로 돌아갈 가능성이 높습니다.

이 문제는 대법원까지 올라갈 수도 있지만, 대법원이 이를 거부할 가능성이 높습니다.

대통령 면책특권에 대한 대법원의 입장

대통령 면책특권에 대한 클라렌스 토마스의 별도 의견은 다른 대법관들로부터 지지를 얻지 못했습니다.

대법관들 사이에 합의가 이루어지지 않았다는 것은 도널드 트럼프가 이 문제를 제기할 경우 이 문제를 다루지 않을 수도 있음을 시사합니다.

제11순회항소법원이 캐논 판사의 판결을 뒤집고 사건을 파기환송하면 도널드 트럼프는 제11순회항소법원과 대법원 모두에 집행정지를 요청해야 하며, 대법원이 이 문제를 해결할 때까지 재판부의 업무가 지연될 가능성이 있습니다.

트럼프에게 유리한 캐논 판사의 사법적 재량권

캐논 판사는 도널드 트럼프에게 유리하도록 사법적 재량권을 남용할 가능성이 있다는 이유로 여러 차례 판결이 번복되었습니다.

항소법원은 잭 스미스의 요청에 따라 또는 자체적으로 공정성을 의심할 여지가 없는 판사에게 사건을 환송할 수 있습니다.

항소법원은 필요에 따라 새 재판부 판사를 배정할 수 있는 권한이 있으므로 상황은 유동적입니다.