Josh Hawley Has Complete Meltdown Because He Doesn’t Understand The Law

Republican Senator Josh Hawley had a mini-meltdown on social media after it was announced that Jack Smith had filed a superseding indictment against Donald Trump in order to comply with the Supreme Court’s recent decision on immunity. The Yale Law School graduate cried on Twitter that what Smith was doing was somehow “illegal” because of the SCOTUS ruling, which prompted multiple legal scholars to have to come out and correct him about what the law actually says. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains what happened.

Subscribe to stay connected to our stories

Support us by becoming a member on YouTube

Or Support us on Patreon

Buy Ring of Fire merch

Find us on social media!

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Republican Senator Josh Hawley really stepped in it recently on Twitter, of course, following the superseding indictment that was handed down by Jack Smith this past Tuesday. Now, in the superseding indictment, what happened in case you haven't kind of, you know, really dived into it. Uh, he basically removed a couple of the issues that he had brought up in the indictments specifically, and this is probably the biggest one, the fact that Donald Trump attempted to use the Department of Justice in order to subvert the election results as president of the United States. He really does have, you know, some authority over the DOJ. So in order to comply with the Supreme Court's immunity ruling from the summer, Jack Smith said, okay, we'll take these things out because you could easily make the argument this was an official duty. Official duties have immunity. Let's not even get into that. I'll take it out right now.

It won't even be an issue. Legal experts across the board heralded these superseding indictments as a very smart move, removing anything that could get in the way of being able to prosecute Donald Trump. But Holly, Josh Hawley, who is in the middle of a contentious, by the way, reelection battle against Lucas Kuntz. Um, and he also, by the way, went to Yale Law School, doesn't seem to understand how the law works. So Holly, following this announcement of the superseding indictment, got on Twitter and said this, this guy is totally out of control. The Supreme Court was clear, but now Harrison Coe ignore the law to try to jail Trump totally corrupt from the guy that went to Yale Law School. And at one point in his career actually taught constitutional law, law law. And he says that Jack Smith is somehow violating the law and ignoring the Supreme Court's order.

No, Jack Smith complied with the Supreme Court. I'm sure he didn't want to, but he realized, okay, you say that he is immunity for official acts. You could argue this is an official act. I'll take it out. We won't even go there. We'll go to all these other places where he doesn't have authority. And where these were not official acts and Holly doesn't seem to understand that. You see, the big thing, and I stress this at the time of the Supreme Court's decision, is the fact that the Supreme Court said if it's an official act, if it's an official duty of the President of the United States, he's got immunity. If it's not an official act, he doesn't have immunity. See, Republicans always love to forget the second part of the ruling where if he does something outside of official acts, he ain't immune that they love to pretend that that part didn't happen. But it is

In the ruling in, in fact, I've, I've seen plenty of people on the left pretend that that part also wasn't in there. Was the ruling bad? Hell yeah, it was bad, but technically it didn't say anything other than what the actual law already says. So that's why a lot of people were annoyed. I didn't freak out about it when it happened. 'cause it's like, I mean, that's kind of what the law says guys. But anyway, legal experts were very quick to get on Josh Hawley's and point out how wrong he is. Bradley Moss, former national security attorney, said, quote, the Supreme Court in no way said the indictment in its entirety had to be thrown out.