S.C. Jack Smith Asks the Supreme Court if US Presidents are Immune from Prosecution.

a reply to: Mahogani
Hasent happen before ... so where just going to pretend Nixon doesn't exist hear

a reply to: dothedew

There are rules in place that allows someone to appeal directly to SCOTUS in cases that have an imperative public importance.

It's the same thing that was done with US v. Nixon.

originally posted by: Markovian2
a reply to: Mahogani
Hasent happen before ... so where just going to pretend Nixon doesn't exist hear

Nixon was pardoned.

a reply to: Markovian2

Nixon was never indicted. Ford pardoned him before he was ever charged.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: dothedew

There are rules in place that allows someone to appeal directly to SCOTUS in cases that have an imperative public importance.

It's the same thing that was done with US v. Nixon.

In addition to drugs, murderers, rapists, & diseases, we now have KILLER TICKS coming into our country.

Why is no-one asking the Supreme Court to take emergency action on this crisis?

a reply to: Threadbarer
The claim made was no president had ever committed a felony before not charged

a reply to: network dude

You assume the law is applied equally. Cute.

a reply to: WeMustCare

lololololol

That was amazing.

I did do a quick little search, and the SCOTUS would appear to have original jurisdiction over the case, so it *COULD* be able to be appealed to them directly.

The part that catches the eye though, is that the special wizard Dumbledork is essentially appealing a ruling that favored his (very thin, highly objective and laughable at best) case in the first place. Essentially he's trying to do it to screw Trump out of an appeal IMO, not so much to "keep the trial on track" as he's claiming.

If this *didn't happen*, Trump could appeal, and have the appeals court rule for or against him; at which point either party could try to appeal to SCOTUS and they could either reverse it, affirm it, or refuse to hear it, letting the appeal order stand.

If SCOTUS takes it up, there's no intermediate ruling; it's their say going right from the rip. No other appeals from the Trump team.

Again, examining from all angles, if SCOTUS doesn't hear it then Trump still can appeal and have the middle court ruling stand. A double edged sword of infinite possibility.

It just seems like a very underhanded way to cut a party's options down regarding a case built upon BS and angry idiots with mountains of evidence flying in their face. A Hail Mary of desperation.

originally posted by: Markovian2
a reply to: Threadbarer
The claim made was no president had ever committed a felony before not charged

You're right. I did say in one of my posts that this was the first time felonies were committed; it would have been more correct to say a president was charged for the felonies they committed, because Nixon was pardoned before he could be charged, but he did commit crimes.

If Biden had pardoned Trump before he could be charged, it would be the same.

He could still pardon him after his convictions, but Trump would still be the first president indicted on felonies in US history.

a reply to: Mahogani
We could also say Trump is the only president not to be pardoned

Pondering on that subject and why it is a thing POTUS do for each other is interesting tho not the topic at hand so carry on

originally posted by: Markovian2
a reply to: Mahogani
We could also say Trump is the only president not to be pardoned

We could. We could also say he was the first president to be indicted on felonies, pardon or not, and probably the third to actually commit crimes. If he is convicted he will be the first president to actually be a felon.

Nixon, as we discussed, also committed crimes but was pardoned. Clinton obstructed justice and lied to protect himself, that was also outside of his presidential duties and he could have been charged. Instead, Ken Starr decided to focus on Monica and the impeachment, and didn't pursue those charges.

a reply to: WeMustCare

I don't think the Supreme Court will touch it, but it begs the question, what is the left so afraid of with Trump?

a reply to: WeMustCare

Then there is this...........


Prosecutorial and Grand Jury Access to Presidential Documents



Recognizing that the “public has a right to every man's evidence,” the Court has held that the President may be required to testify or produce documents in criminal proceedings when called upon by the courts.14 This principle dates to the earliest days of the Republic, when Chief Justice John Marshall presided as the Circuit Justice for Virginia over the infamous treason trial of Aaron Burr. In that case, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that President Thomas Jefferson could be subject to a subpoena to provide a document relevant to the trial.15 Specifically, he declared that, in contrast to common law privileges afforded the King of England, the President was not “exempt from the general provisions of the constitution,” like the Sixth Amendment, that provide for compulsory process for the defense.16 Nonetheless, Chief Justice Marshall recognized that while the President could be subject to a criminal subpoena, the President could still withhold specific information from disclosure based on the existence of a privilege.17 In the two centuries since the Burr trial, historical practice by the executive branch18 and Supreme Court rulings “unequivocally and emphatically endorsed” Chief Justice Marshall's position that the President was subject to federal criminal process.19 In 2020, the Court extended this precedent to the context of a state criminal proceeding, concluding that the President was not absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas.20

While the President is subject to criminal process, the question remains as to the limits on that process. The Court has recognized several constraints on the ability of a prosecutor to obtain evidence from the President through the use of a criminal subpoena.21 First, like any citizen, the President can challenge a particular subpoena on the grounds that it was issued in bad faith or was unduly broad.22 Second, the timing and scope of criminal discovery must be informed by the nature of the office of the President—for example, granting deference in scheduling proceedings to avoid significant interference with the President's official responsibilities.23 Third, the President can raise subpoena-specific constitutional challenges, arguing that compliance with a particular subpoena would significantly interfere with his efforts to carry out an official duty.24 As the Court first recognized in United States v. Nixon, one particularly notable constitutionally based challenge that a President can lodge against a criminal subpoena is a claim of executive privilege in certain presidential communications.25
Presidential communications, the Nixon Court said, have “a presumptive privilege.” “The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.” The operation of government is furthered by the protection accorded communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their duties. “A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.” The separation of powers basis derives from the conferral upon each of the branches of the Federal Government of powers to be exercised by each of them in great measure independent of the other branches. The confidentiality of presidential conversations flows then from the effectuation of enumerated powers.26 (Judge Wilkey concurring); Military Cold War Escalation and Speech Review Policies: Hearings Before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 87th Congress, 2d Sess. (1962), 512 (Senator Stennis). See Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911 (1976); United States v. Ehrlichman, 389 F. Supp. 95 (D.D.C. 1974).

However, the Court continued, the privilege is not absolute. The federal courts have the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express and implied powers. Deference is owed the constitutional decisions of the other branches, but it is the function of the courts to exercise the judicial power, “to say what the law is.” The Judicial Branch has the obligation to do justice in criminal prosecutions, which involves the employment of an adversary system of criminal justice in which all the probative facts, save those clearly privileged, are to be made available. Thus, although the President’s claim of privilege is entitled to deference, the courts must balance two sets of interests when the claim depends solely on a broad, undifferentiated claim of confidentiality.

“In this case we must weigh the importance of the general privilege of confidentiality of presidential communications in performance of his responsibilities against the inroads of such a privilege on the fair administration of criminal justice. The interest in preserving confidentiality is weighty indeed and entitled to great respect. However we cannot conclude that advisers will be moved to temper the candor of their remarks by the infrequent occasions of disclosure because of the possibility that such conversations will be called for in the context of a criminal prosecution.”

“On the other hand, the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function of the courts. A President’s acknowledged need for confidentiality in the communications of his office is general in nature, whereas the constitutional need for production of relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding is specific and central to the fair adjudication of a particular criminal case in the administration of justice. . . .”


www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: WeMustCare

I don't think the Supreme Court will touch it, but it begs the question, what is the left so afraid of with Trump?

They have a bad track record of him proving them wrong and the possibility of him running again will just perpetuate that pattern.

Plus, if he runs again, they're going to have to pull out all the stops come election time like they did last time and that'll look EXTREMELY suspicious when the same exact thing(s) happen once again like magic.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The case is coming to them one way or another. The question is whether they hear it now or after the DC Circuit makes their decision on Trump's appeal.

a reply to: Boomer1947

As another example, handling and retaining classified documents IS an official POTUS duty, which is why the Special Counsel was careful to point out in his indictment of Trump for mishandling national security documents that the crimes being prosecuted occurred only AFTER Trump left office.

So by that same logic Biden should be ineligible to be POTUS. Since he mishandled classified documents when he was only a Senator and can still be prosecuted. Since he still had those documents till recently. The statute of limitations doesn't end from when they were first taken but from when the crime was discovered. More poor planning on the dems part. These actions seem to bite them in the rear.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: WeMustCare

I don't think the Supreme Court will touch it, but it begs the question, what is the left so afraid of with Trump?

You don't know? He's a threat to democracy! So in order to prevent him from destroying "democracy", the left needs to obliterate "democracy", go outside the law/norms, and prevent him from even being able to run for office again, as our democratic system provides for.

Remember, anyone can be president if they meet the criteria. Anyone but Trump. Didn't you pay attention to his first term?

You don't remember Nukuler War! You don't remember the genocide of the Dems? You don't remember him being a dictator and never leaving the White House? All of that took place in the tiny minds of TDS folk.

a reply to: hangedman13

that among other things is why I think this ruling is key. Biden will be arrested, and as we have seen the new normal is for Trump's DOJ to indict the 2028 Dem Candidate for multiple crimes before the election in hopes that the embarrassment of it all will force him to quit. That's how it's done now.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: WeMustCare

I don't think the Supreme Court will touch it, but it begs the question, what is the left so afraid of with Trump?

First former and current campaigning president to "joke" about being a dictator several times and state he would use the military against his political rivals. What's scary about that lol? As long as he is on your side....

originally posted by: LeXoXeL

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: WeMustCare

I don't think the Supreme Court will touch it, but it begs the question, what is the left so afraid of with Trump?

First former and current campaigning president to "joke" about being a dictator several times and state he would use the military against his political rivals. What's scary about that lol? As long as he is on your side....

yes, since currently the other side is doing just that. Well, not the military, just the DOJ.