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

Monday, December 11, 2023

Huge Ramifications, if the Supreme Court rules either YES or NO.

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president.

The extraordinary request is an attempt by Smith to keep the election subversion trial – currently scheduled for early March – on track. Smith is asking the Supreme Court to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly decide a fundamental issue of the case against Trump.

Source: www.cnn.com...

If the Supreme Court rules that U.S. Presidents can be arrested and tried for crimes committed while in office, that would be a reversal of what has been assumed. All past living Presidents could then be arrested and put on trial for crimes committed while they are in, or were in office.


-WeMustCare

SCOTUS won't touch this with a 10ft pole, regardless of who asks. It's a powder keg with a short fuse on both ends.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Thanks, I was just going to post on this too, but I'm glad you did, it will garner more attention.

This shaves a few months of delays in the courts, as Jack Smith is skipping the appeals court to go directly to the Supreme Court, and would keep the March trial date on time.

From the Chutkan ruling being appealed, and the filing:

"Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability," Chutkan wrote. "Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office."

"The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens," prosecutors wrote in court papers.

Edit to add:

If the Supreme Court rules that U.S. Presidents can be arrested and tried for crimes committed while in office, that would be a reversal of what has been assumed. All past living Presidents could then be arrested and put on trial for crimes committed while they are in, or were in office.

All other presidents could always have been charged, it's just that we are seeing for the first time a former president commit felonies. It hasn't happened before in our history. But they always could have been indicted. No laws against it.

Knock Donald Trump out of being able to be POTUS.
Put Nicki Haley in as GOP candidate.
She is WAY ahead of Biden in the polls.
She 'wins'. And America has a globalist in office.
New World Order wins.

Yes .. she is a globalist. I saw footage of her saying so herself.
"I AM A GLOBALIST". She actually admitted it.

originally posted by: LeXoXeL
SCOTUS won't touch this with a 10ft pole, regardless of who asks. It's a powder keg with a short fuse on both ends.

That would not be wise.

If they don't take it up now, they'll have to take it up again in 2-3 months, after the appeals court. This just skips the appeals court and brings it to them directly, where it would go anyway.

This is basically what it boils down to and what the SC will likely do; it's very simple:

1. Is there a law anywhere in US Law saying Presidents are above the law, giving them immunity and CLEARLY stating the law does not apply to presidents or former presidents.

2. If no such law exists, and has never been written, then all the laws applying to ALL Americans also apply to the presidents.

a reply to: WeMustCare

I almost hope the rule against Trump, as that would translate to much more than just Trump. Biden could be charged for criminal neglect at the border, as he should be.

originally posted by: LeXoXeL
SCOTUS won't touch this with a 10ft pole, regardless of who asks. It's a powder keg with a short fuse on both ends.

I wonder how long they will take to say, "We're not touching this with a 10 foot pole!"?? I think they're on a 5 week holiday vacation.

a reply to: Mahogani

Obama committed at least on felony in office but was not charged, because he was the President. He took $3 Billion and spent it without getting Congressional approval.

If the Supreme Court rules Trump can be put on trial for what he did in office, Obama can be also.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Powerful backers will make you Arrogant. Biden had that same trait before Nov 2020. "I don't need you to be elected, but I'll need your support after I'm elected!", he told a little crowd in October of 2020.

Remember the good ol days of legal procedure? Rules? Methodology? Going through the correct channels and taking the right steps?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Seriously. I'm just going to start telling everyone I know to appeal everything directly to the Supreme Court, either State or Federal. Traffic ticket? Supreme Court. Straight there. F*** it.

On a side note, in theory, Presidents would be on the chopping block because something something congress not passing any laws that don't apply to them, blah blah something or other.

Then again, they already proved that didn't apply with Obamacare, so....... I don't know. "Who's Line is it Anyway" rules it is - everything is made up and the points don't matter.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
Monday, December 11, 2023

Huge Ramifications, if the Supreme Court rules either YES or NO.

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president.

The extraordinary request is an attempt by Smith to keep the election subversion trial – currently scheduled for early March – on track. Smith is asking the Supreme Court to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly decide a fundamental issue of the case against Trump.

Source: www.cnn.com...

If the Supreme Court rules that U.S. Presidents can be arrested and tried for crimes committed while in office, that would be a reversal of what has been assumed. All past living Presidents could then be arrested and put on trial for crimes committed while they are in, or were in office.


-WeMustCare

There has never been any binding precedent that says a POTUS couldn't be tried for crimes committed while he/she was POTUS. The DOJ (an executive branch agency) has a POLICY of not indicting or prosecuting a sitting POTUS, and that is why Special Counsel Mueller did not pursue obstruction of justice charges against Trump in his final report. But that's just a policy and not a law.

There has never been any legal or Constitutional problem with indicting/prosecuting a former POTUS after he/she leaves office for crimes committed while he/she was in office. However, the alleged crimes have to relate to actions that the incumbent POTUS undertook as an individual and were not part of official duties. For example, writing checks to porn stars to cover up extramarital affairs is not an official duty. 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.

Donald Trump is simply the first POTUS to have committed a bunch of felonies while in office, so the issue has never come up before.

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: LeXoXeL
SCOTUS won't touch this with a 10ft pole, regardless of who asks. It's a powder keg with a short fuse on both ends.

I wonder how long they will take to say, "We're not touching this with a 10 foot pole!"?? I think they're on a 5 week holiday vacation.

There's effectively a zero percent chance that this won't end up at the Supreme Court. The only question is whether it has to take a detour through an appeals court before it gets there.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: WeMustCare

I almost hope the rule against Trump, as that would translate to much more than just Trump. Biden could be charged for criminal neglect at the border, as he should be.

Trump is hoping they rule against him too. One reason is because the attorneys filed papers saying they will be providing classified documents that prove election fraud, during the trial.

originally posted by: Boomer1947
Donald Trump is simply the first POTUS to have committed a bunch of felonies while in office, ..

Wanna' bet? I seriously doubt he's the first. He's the first to be gone after, but I doubt he's the first to have done anything prosecutable. The politicians in general are way too crooked for him to be the first.

a reply to: dothedew

This administration ignores the Supreme Court anyway. The SCOTUS told Biden to keep migrants in Mexico until they're processed, like Trump did successfully.

Biden/Mayorkas/Psaki laughed, held up their middle finger to the Supreme Court, and continued to let humanity, drugs and diseases, flood over the US-Mex border.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Mahogani

Obama committed at least on felony in office but was not charged, because he was the President. He took $3 Billion and spent it without getting Congressional approval.

If the Supreme Court rules Trump can be put on trial for what he did in office, Obama can be also.

Judge Chutkan, and others, already ruled that presidents can't be charged for offenses that are a part of their duties. That is what Special Counsel Mueller also wrote, that he cannot file any charges against a sitting president, so he only indicted the Russians who tampered in the 2016 election.

If sitting presidents could be charged, Mueller would have already charged Trump a long time ago. He could not. He followed the law.

However, Trump's actions on Jan 6 were outside of his presidential duties, and therefore as an American citizen, acting on his own, the same laws apply as they do with everyone. What happened on January 6 was not what a president should be doing. it was political speech, free speech, but not a part of president's duties. There are no protections.

a reply to: Boomer1947

You're saying "Presidential Immunity" is just a policy...not a law?

originally posted by: Mahogani

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Mahogani

Obama committed at least on felony in office but was not charged, because he was the President. He took $3 Billion and spent it without getting Congressional approval.

If the Supreme Court rules Trump can be put on trial for what he did in office, Obama can be also.

Judge Chutkan, and others, already ruled that presidents can't be charged for offenses that are a part of their duties. That is what Special Counsel Mueller also wrote, that he cannot file any charges against a sitting president, so he only indicted the Russians who tampered in the 2016 election.

If sitting presidents could be charged, Mueller would have already charged Trump a long time ago. He could not. He followed the law.

However, Trump's actions on Jan 6 were outside of his presidential duties, and therefore as an American citizen, acting on his own, the same laws apply as they do with everyone. What happened on January 6 was not what a president should be doing. it was political speech, free speech, but not a part of president's duties. There are no protections.

Telling a crowd, "March peacefully down to the Capitol and let your voices be heard", is not something any of us could be arrested for, LOL.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Nope.

But here is a better example.

Say the president is at a political rally, and still a president, running for second term. And he takes a gun on stage, and fires it into the crowd and kills someone. Can the president be prosecuted for murder?

Was it a part of his presidential duties to shoot a gun and kill someone?

a reply to: Boomer1947

Pot, you just HAVE to meet my friend kettle.