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

a reply to: WeMustCare

It's almost like he's stalling. Just like in every other case against him.

If he has all this insurmountable evidence supporting him that will also show how he never actually lost the election why is he trying so hard to avoid showing it in court?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WeMustCare

It's almost like he's stalling. Just like in every other case against him.

If he has all this insurmountable evidence supporting him that will also show how he never actually lost the election why is he trying so hard to avoid showing it in court?

If the case is going to be tried in a D.C. Court, I understand the Trump team's delay and stall tactics 100%. Jack Smith is certain the jury will find Trump "guilty" of something, regardless of evidence presented. Trump is certain the jury will find him guilty. Most of the country knows the D.C. jury will find Trump "guilty".

Therefore, we have....

High Court Drama – 19 States File Brief With Supreme Court Supporting Donald Trump Immunity Decision, Jack Smith Files Response.

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow the legal arguments with presidential immunity to follow the traditional path through the appeals court [pdf court filing].

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith wants to sidestep the appeals court and go directly to the Supreme Court for resolution.

As noted by Politico, President Trump’s lawyers “repeatedly warning the justices to avoid “haste,” Trump’s lawyers skewered Smith for taking extraordinary steps to preserve the March 4, 2024, trial date without detailing why taking the case to a jury just over two months from now is so critical.”

In essence, Jack Smith is trying to force a fast trial on schedule to gain maximum interference with the GOP primary election, while Trump’s lawyers are calling him out for it.

theconservativetreehouse.com... n-jack-smith-files-response/

SCOTUS says there is no rush....

Link

Merry Christmas Everyone....except Jack he can suck on coal.

a reply to: matafuchs

DENIED .

It Will NEVER Reach the SCOTUS Now . Meaning that the case will go through the Normal Process in the Appeals Court and WIN .


" Supreme Court Will Not Immediately Hear Presidential Immunity Case Despite Jack Smith’s Plea for Speed "






" The Supreme Court of the United States will not immediately hear former President Donald Trump’s case for presidential immunity, siding with Trump, who argued the court should reject Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request for a speedy review and decision.

The high court on Friday declined Smith’s request for a quick review, meaning that the case will go through the normal process in the appeals court and likely make its way to the SCOTUS from there.

This is a significant victory for Trump and a major setback for Smith, who is racing against the clock to put Trump on trial in front of a heavily Democrat jury before the election. "





www.breitbart.com...

originally posted by: matafuchs
SCOTUS says there is no rush....

Link

Merry Christmas Everyone....except Jack he can suck on coal.

I hope the Supreme Court is in more of a rush to say candidate Trump can NOT be kicked off a state's ballot.

a reply to: matafuchs

Oral arguments in DC Circuit on 1/9. Still plenty of time to go through SCOTUS before March.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Can the appeals court remove the stay? They should be able to. will they?

Doesn't this basically mean the supremes don't want to get involved? This was a single sentence no thanks. They could also not take up the appeals crt decision and just let it hold when done. They could not want to rule on this. Or at least until they figure out if Clarence Thomas should recuse.

Is that possible that they don't take it up at all?

Time is running out for TDS fanatics to "Get Trump!", before the November election.

Two more tools/weapons removed from their pitiful arsenal today by the Supreme Court.

1.) Trump will not be found guilty of an insurrection before November 2024.

2.) Trump cannot be kept off a state ballot for "insurrection" reasons, if he has not been found guilty of "insurrection".

Read and Think: www.vox.com...

December 22, 2023

Feedback from former/next President, Donald J. Trump.

The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Deranged Jack Smith’s desperate attempt to short circuit our Great Constitution.

Crooked Joe Biden and his henchmen waited three years to bring this sham case, and now they have tried and failed to rush this Witch Hunt through the courts.

Of course I am entitled to Presidential Immunity. I was President, it was my right and duty to investigate, and speak on, the rigged and stolen 2020 Presidential Election.

Looking forward to the very important arguments on Presidential Immunity in front of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Make America Great Again!

Source: truthsocial.com...@realDonaldTrump/111626354214582925

a reply to: WeMustCare

How would he know that?

Here is the ruling

supreme ruling

Nobody knows how they all voted.

originally posted by: PrestigeWorldwide
a reply to: WeMustCare

How would he know that?

Here is the ruling

supreme ruling

Nobody knows how they all voted.

Did anyone even really expect the SCOTUS to say -- "Yeah sure Jack -- whatever you want".

a reply to: PrestigeWorldwide

Theoretically the appellate court or SCOTUS could lift the stay, but they won't. It was put in place by the trial judge in an ongoing case. They're not going to step on Chutkan's toes like that.

It's very possible SCOTUS refuses to hear the case after the DC Circuit's ruling. That said, they pretty much rejected the petition for an expedited schedule because the DC Circuit has already issued their own expedited schedule.

With oral arguments on 1/9, I wouldn't be surprised if a ruling is made by the end of that week. If SCOTUS really wanted to they could have a ruling by the end of the following week. The 2000 election case was decided in four days.

The most important Supreme Court ruling will be preventing states from kicking Donald Trump off the ballot over a crime (insurrection) that didn't happen.

Congress has NOT stated there was an insurrection on Jan 6, 2021.

If Congress says there was no insurrection. There was no insurrection.

a reply to: WeMustCare


" Trump Derangement Syndrome Just Became Orwellian'; VDH "

" It approved the erasure of Trump from the Republican primary ballot in Colorado, by invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

That ossified clause was intended to bar any ante-bellum federal officials who joined the Confederacy from again holding federal offices after 1865.

In no way is Trump’s conduct on January 6 comparable to calling for secession, much less prompting a Civil War that cost the country 700,000 lives.

An “insurrectionist” president does not address unarmed protestors with qualifiers like, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

How also can one be guilty of insurrection without ever being indicted for such a supposed crime, much less convicted of it? "


...........The Left Believes in Fantasy , Reality Believes in the LAW..........













www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: Threadbarer

Thanks for answering that. So few weeks until we know wht is next and where this goes?

originally posted by: WeMustCare

If Congress says there was no insurrection. There was no insurrection.

Even I know that's not true.

Congress is the legislative branch, the courts are judicial. Criminal cases are decided in court, not by legislation.

And the courts already ruled it was an insurrection, and the supremes didn't step in and reject that, means that ruling is still good. It was an insurrection, until the supremes say something else.

a reply to: PrestigeWorldwide

Thats just not how law works.

Sorry

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: PrestigeWorldwide

Thats just not how law works.

Sorry

That's exactly how the law works, nothing to be sorry about.

If you think it's different and the legislative branch decides on judicial cases, enlighten us and post more about it.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: PrestigeWorldwide

originally posted by: WeMustCare

If Congress says there was no insurrection. There was no insurrection.

Even I know that's not true.

Congress is the legislative branch, the courts are judicial. Criminal cases are decided in court, not by legislation.

And the courts already ruled it was an insurrection, and the supremes didn't step in and reject that, means that ruling is still good. It was an insurrection, until the supremes say something else.

Another uninformed sock puppet.

What courts ruled it was an insurrection? Colorado SC?
That will be squashed in no time.

What is your deal?

Am I not allowed to ask questions and make statements?

If you think Im wrong go ahead and post the proof, don't call me names.

Sheesh.