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

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: DBCowboy

As was already pointed out, every single indictment came before Trump announced his candidacy.

Threadbarer, I was wrong. carewemust pointed it out and I edited my post on the previous page. It was a long day yesterday and I made a mistake.

All the indictments happened after he declared for candidacy last Nov 2022.

a reply to: Mahogani

It's WeMustCare!

CareWeMust is hibernating.

a reply to: WeMustCare

lol

My bad, it's just stuck that way.

Link

A federal judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, on Wednesday ruled to pause former President Trump’s January 6 case as he appeals a recent decision to have the case tossed.

This will put the trial closer to the election and more than likely not in March as scheduled.

a reply to: matafuchs

This was expected. It's the whole reason Smith is expediting the appeals so they can keep the March trial start.

a reply to: matafuchs

Why put a pause on something that has not started yet, and will not start for at least 3 months?

What exactly is being paused?

a reply to: WeMustCare

Pretrial meetings for CIPA. The actual trial. Stuff like that. Pretty much the only things still active are the gag order and bond conditions.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Thanks for The detailed explanation. Now the pause makes more sense.

a reply to: WeMustCare

This case could get it all thrown out anyway. Two separate cases. One of 45 and one for a 1/6 protestor. This ruling is much more important than the Smith case alone as it could render many convictions null.

Link

The Justice Department has used the charge as the cornerstone of many of the more serious Capitol riot cases, where defendants were outspoken about their desire to stop Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s Electoral College win or were instrumental in the physical breach of the Capitol. Joseph Fischer, the man at the center of the case, was charged with multiple federal crimes for his role in the January 6 attack. A federal judge agreed to throw out the specific charge brought against Fischer under the obstruction law. A federal appeals court divided on the matter earlier this year, with a majority holding that the broad terms of the obstruction statute were satisfied as applied to individuals who forcibly entered the Capitol on January 6. The Supreme Court will now decide the issue this term.

This is more on the Trump case.

Link

edit on Decam31amf0000002023-12-14T11:38:02-06:001102 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)

a reply to: matafuchs

I'm confused about the Jan 6th case. The charges seem to be that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Based on what we know, he met with his lawyers and did everything he could legally to challenge this. In order for this to be a crime, wouldn't he have had to do something, illegal? Did he secretly meet with the protesters and instruct them on what to do? If that's the charge, is the proof of that?

And for the record, if he did secretly plan something like that, then he's guilty and should be charged. But if he didn't, and this is all just about him crying and throwing a legal fit, then Jack Smith should be charged.

a reply to: network dude

The craziest thing, again, to me, is that this was already investigated. FBI and DOJ found no insurrection.

Also, if there was a true plot ARREST him. Use the Patriot Act and hold him. The issue is they know there is no wrongdoing but if you tie him up in court it will abuse his public image and keep him in court.

originally posted by: matafuchs
The issue is they know there is no wrongdoing but if you tie him up in court it will abuse his public image and keep him in court.

yes, and if that's the real facts, and it's proven, the Smith should be charged and let him explain who told him to bring bullsh!t charges against Trump. Eventually, someone will point to Biden, or they will go down for him.

I must not be the sharpest tool in the shed......but how can you ask the SC to rule on a defense issue before a conviction?


It sounds like....we might get a conviction and need to get a judgement in case the defendant appeals prior to a conviction.

a reply to: matafuchs

From a layman's perspective, it looks like bolts and screws keep getting poured in the tree shredder, so it will seize up before the Trump tree can be thrown in.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: network dude

The craziest thing, again, to me, is that this was already investigated. FBI and DOJ found no insurrection.

Also, if there was a true plot ARREST him. Use the Patriot Act and hold him. The issue is they know there is no wrongdoing but if you tie him up in court it will abuse his public image and keep him in court.

Attorney General Bill Barr
Attorney General Merrick Garland
FBI Director Christopher Wray

ARE ALL IN DEEP SH'IT come 2025. (Joe Biden before then.)

originally posted by: RickinVa
I must not be the sharpest tool in the shed......but how can you ask the SC to rule on a defense issue before a conviction?


It sounds like....we might get a conviction and need to get a judgement in case the defendant appeals prior to a conviction.

Bingo....It is a clown world in the Federal Court System Right now as well as SDNY....

originally posted by: RickinVa
I must not be the sharpest tool in the shed......but how can you ask the SC to rule on a defense issue before a conviction?

It's not about the conviction, it's about the defense. Can he or can he not use this defense when the trial starts?

Is there an immunity, or is there no immunity as multiple courts have already ruled. If SC upholds that he has no immunity, he can't use that as a defense at trial.

If they rule he does have immunity, they will see which charges the immunity applies to and those would be non-prosecutable.

12/20/2023

In addition to being radical Democrat, Jack Smith may actually have a few "screws loose", as some observers allege.

Due to his request for the Supreme Court to determine if former President Trump has "immunity", the Jan6 trial preparations have been "paused".

But, Jack Smith is still attempting to push trial preparation along, even though judge Chutkan told everyone to stop preparing.

Donald Trump's lawyers are refusing to accept disclosure documents they sought in his election fraud trial.

In a letter to prosecutors, they said they would not open the documents because the judge in the case has stayed, or frozen, the case while the former president appeals it to a higher court.

They also refused to accept a draft exhibit list for trial, which is due to begin in March.

"We do not accept the productions and will not review them. We ask that you refrain from all further attempts to impose litigation burdens on us, including through discovery or other submissions, until and unless the Court lifts the Stay Order," they wrote in a December 18 letter to two of the prosecutors in the case, Thomas Windom and Molly Gaston.

More at: www.newsweek.com...

12/20/2023

In today's required filing at the SCOTUS, President Trump urges the Supreme Court to take their time...NO HURRY.

Washington — Former President Donald Trump urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to deny a request from special counsel Jack Smith and decline to consider Trump's claims of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution before an appeals court can examine the matter.

Attorneys for the former president wrote in a filing with the high court that its ordinary review procedures will allow the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to address Trump's appeal first, with the benefit of the lower court's consideration of "historic topics."

The justices are currently weighing a request from Smith to bypass the D.C. Circuit and quickly decide whether Trump is fully shielded from criminal prosecution for charges stemming from his alleged attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Trump has pleaded not guilty in the case.

"In 234 years of American history, no president ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists," Trump's legal team wrote in Wednesday's filing.

www.cbsnews.com...

Jack Smith needs to learn PATIENCE!

a reply to: Mahogani

Jack Smith has NO LEGAL Authority to Request Anything from the SCOTUS , CONFIRMED .