The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States dealt a massive blow to Jack Smith’s sham January 6 case against Trump, and the fake news media has taken notice:

In effect, the 6-3 landmark ruling provides a framework for determining which presidential actions enjoy criminal immunity and which don’t. Official actions, such as dealing with the Justice Department, enjoy absolute immunity, while a broad range of activity enjoys what the court calls “presumptive immunity.” Not everything the president does is official, and the ruling holds that non-official activity by a president does not enjoy immunity.

This is a landmark case in constitutional law with much bigger implications than those pertaining to Trump’s case. But anyone with a passing familiarity with Jack Smith’s so-called “January 6 indictment” against Trump will understand how devastating this ruling is for this particular witch hunt case. For one, the President’s dealings with the DOJ enjoy absolute immunity, thereby destroying every aspect of Jack Smith’s case having to do with Trump allegedly conspiring with Justice officials to “overturn the election.”

The judge in Trump’s case must apply this new framework to other matters to determine just how much of the case is salvageable (for instance, which aspects under the original indictment would enjoy immunity, presumptive immunity, or none). At the very least, this is going to push the trial after the election and has even had the effect of pushing back Trump’s sentencing in the still more ridiculous Stormy Daniels “document fraud” case past the election as well, if the sentencing happens at all, as the case may be declared a mistrial. The liberals are not pleased about this, to say the least.

Even liberal law professors concede that at best sixty percent of the original indictment is “salvageable,” and not on a timeline that will be politically advantageous to the witch hunt puppeteers.

Nonetheless, the Democrats and their allies in the media are nothing if not experts at wishful thinking (after all, they conned themselves into thinking Biden was up to the job until it was too late). We see in some quarters desperate attempts to revive Jack Smith’s doomed indictment. In a desperate gasp that is pitiful even by the standards of the so-called paper of record, the New York Times assured dejected Democrats that they could still get some of the political benefit of the Trump trial by holding an evidentiary hearing before the election. That is, the judge needs to determine which actions fall within the scope of which immunity framework, and the fact-finding exercise to determine this could be used as a propaganda tool to peddle Regime disinformation concerning Trump’s alleged efforts to “overturn” the election. In other words, the Times is calling for a sham evidentiary hearing to serve as a sort of January 6 committee, and they hope something will stick. Yawn.

Here’s the fey Andrew Weissman writing in the NYT (emphasis ours):

A factual hearing by Judge Chutkan can decide a host of questions about the actions Mr. Trump is accused of, including if some were undertaken in his personal capacity and thus appropriate for a criminal trial. Was Mr. Trump acting in this capacity when he asked the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” votes? When he allegedly sought to compile slates of fake electors? When he importuned his vice president to not count the electoral votes? And in his communications in the form of social media posts and a public address as a crowd gathered on Jan. 6?

Mr. Smith could call to the stand many of the same witnesses he presumably would at the trial itself: the White House counsels who may have refused to participate in such actions and advised against its legality; the Trump campaign officials who refused to go along with the fake elector scheme; and a vice president who rejected the idea that he had the authority to refuse or even delay the counting of electoral votes.

These witnesses could provide new and important evidence that was not part of the congressional Jan. 6 hearings. There is good reason that this evidence was not previously disclosed: There is a world of difference between the tools available to the Justice Department and congressional committees to procure full and candid testimony from witnesses. Mr. Pence, for example, did not testify at all before Congress but was required to testify before Mr. Smith’s grand jury.

Other witnesses invoked dubious privileges before Congress that kept from public view direct conversations with Mr. Trump, but Mr. Smith has by all accounts been tenacious in defeating bogus privilege claims.

A pretrial hearing like this could start very soon. This type of hearing is routinely done in connection with federal criminal cases on a wide range of issues, most commonly motions to suppress evidence.

Indeed, it is clear from Weissman’s own language that the intention of such a desperate maneuver would be to continue the sham January 6 committee via other means, with the still more corrupt and far-reaching powers of the compromised Justice Department for an added assist.

Luckily, this is too little, too late, and is not likely to be approved. If anything, the prosecutors’ decision to delay sentencing in the Stormy Daniels trial indicates that even Biden’s aggressive prosecutors are in a posture of retreat.

The Democrats put all their eggs into this lawfare basket—into the notion that sham indictments and the words “convicted felon” would be enough to defeat Trump in court without having to defeat him in the ballot box. Like their decision not to remove Biden a year ago, this has proven to be a fatal miscalculation that in all likelihood will end up propelling a triumphant, embattled Trump back into the White House with one big, beautiful word on his mind: retribution.