Donald Trump is the client from hell, and it appears that he is getting the kind of legal representation that flows from that. …

The problem for special prosecutor Jack Smith is that the United States Supreme Court held unanimously in United States v. Gradwell (1917) that corruption of the elections process is not covered by this statutory crime. Gradwell has never been overruled. As recently as Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (2013), the Court noted that under Gradwell, section 371 “did not reach election fraud.” Smith could try to get the Court to overrule Gradwell, or he could try to find some way around it, such as arguing that Gradwell focused on federalism issues, but the counting of electors by Congress suggests that Gradwell should be read narrowly. Either would require him to ask, essentially, for a new legal rule for this case, and the latter stratagem would still force him to narrow the case by dropping efforts to prosecute Trump’s attempts, as the indictment puts it, “to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes” at the state level.

Smith would have to do one of those things if Trump’s lawyers had challenged the indictment under Gradwell. Amazingly, they did not even cite the case in their brief.

[That’s not the only error of omission made by Trump’s legal team either. McLaughlin has more, and it tends to argue for treating your attorneys well or at least paying them for their work so that you can hire the best attorneys when you really need them. — Ed]