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

a reply to: network dude

A truism that is circulating today..

If Trump is found liable, so will Obama and Biden in 2025, when Trump's DOJ investigates their actions.
😈

Appeals court oral arguments are being broadcast live this morning

m.youtube.com...

CNN is upset President Trump is in the audience..

Good!

Trump's lawyers don't seem to be doing a good job. Judge seemed very incredulous when Sauer said a President is free to have political rivals assassinated if they're not impeached.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
Trump's lawyers don't seem to be doing a good job. Judge seemed very incredulous when Sauer said a President is free to have political rivals assassinated if they're not impeached.

If the Appeals and the Supreme Court rule that a President CAN be held responsible or liable for violence, sickness, car accidents, terrorist attacks, drug deaths, virus deaths, etc., and the resulting pain/suffering that occurred under his/her watch.

WHAT THEN for BIDEN, OBAMA...maybe even BUSH (911)?

a reply to: WeMustCare

If they rule a President has absolute immunity, what's to stop Biden from having Trump assassinated and then immediately resigning before he can be impeached?

What's to stop him from assassinating Trump and any member of Congress that would vote in favor of impeaching him?

Well, after listening to that, it did not seem to go so well for Sauer. Now we wait.

a reply to: frogs453

I'd say worst case scenario for DOJ is if the judge remands the case back to Chutkan. It'll eventually make its way through the courts but it would just cause additional delays.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Why was Obama not charged with murder when the droned a US teenager? Is it because it was not his duty to fire it or because he has immunity?

Tuesday, January 9, 2024

From former/next President Donald Trump...

Just finished a very productive Federal Appeals Court Hearing, in Washington, D.C., on whether or not a President should have Immunity.

The answer is YES!

Deranged Jack Smith was in attendance as the other side conceded two very important points, either of which would give the critical Immunity argument to us.

If for any reason it were held that a President doesn’t have Immunity, then Crooked Joe Biden, after he leaves Office, could be charged for the horrible and dangerous job he is doing on the Southern Border, the Afghanistan Disaster with all of its Death, Destruction, and “Surrender,” or his quid pro quo on Ukraine, where he said, on tape, that if they don’t get rid of an Unfriendly Prosecutor, they don’t get the $1 Billion in Funding from the United States (He then clapped his hands, and said, in effect, “I won!”)…..

Source: truthsocial.com...@realDonaldTrump/111727583476492361

IF A PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE IMMUNITY, THE COURT WILL BE “OPENING THE FLOODGATES” TO PROSECUTING FORMER PRESIDENTS. AN OPPOSING HOSTILE PARTY WILL BE DOING IT FOR ANY REASON, ALL OF THE TIME!

truthsocial.com...@realDonaldTrump/111728354619333303

1/30/2024

Question: Could the Supreme Court issue a ruling that "carves out" certain actions of a sitting President as NOT being immune from Prosecution? (Shooting someone, Insurrection, Treason, Orange tan, etc..)

LOTS OF FIREPOWER lining up at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of former/next U.S. President, Donald J. Trump!

CNN — As Donald Trump wages a Supreme Court battle to stay on state presidential ballots, a potent contingent of the conservative legal world has united behind him.

His new principal attorney for the case, Jonathan Mitchell, is a former Supreme Court clerk connected to the right-wing elite who devised the 2021 Texas abortion ban that helped lead to reversal of the Roe v. Wade landmark decision. The Texas law, which included a shrewd mechanism impeding judicial review, prompted liberal Justice Elena Kagan to refer disparagingly to its masterminds as “some geniuses.”

Also backing Trump, with “friend of the court” briefs, are the Republican National Committee and GOP establishment forces, similarly represented by elite appellate advocates who’ve worked for the justices and speak their language. They include former Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco, George W. Bush-era legal adviser John Yoo and other ex-clerks of conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Continued at: www.cnn.com...

FEB 8, 2024 = Oral Arguments on: www.supremecourt.gov.../docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html

🙏🤞

a reply to: WeMustCare

No. I cannot see this. My reasoning on this is simple. Even when Barack killed a US teen in a drone strike.

They are CIC. People can argue the checks and balances and that is fine. I took Civics. Not to hard to understand. Watch some Saturday morning TV and find out from the 70's or 80's.

There are 100 Senators.
There are over 500 House Seats.
There is one president and he is the ONLY person in the United States elected to support all of us.

Enough is enough.

a reply to: matafuchs

January 31, 2024

One that's becoming obvious. The Judicial system is driving Democrats and the U.S. News Media Insane/Crazy, due to not QUICKLY resolving questions surrounding former President / Candidate Donald Trump.

Example from today...

Whether Donald Trump faces a potential prison sentence in 2024 is at the mercy of a federal appeals court that’s operating on its own schedule — at a time when every day matters.

More than 50 days have elapsed since Trump’s criminal proceedings in a Washington, D.C., trial court — on charges for attempting to subvert the 2020 election — were paused indefinitely. They won’t resume until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and, most likely, the Supreme Court resolve the question hanging over the entire case: whether Trump, as a former president, is immune from criminal prosecution.

Even if those courts ultimately reject Trump’s immunity arguments — an outcome that most legal experts expect — the protracted delays help the former president, whose strategy across his various trials has been to drag them out for as long as possible. Lengthy delays in his federal criminal cases create the possibility that, if he wins the presidency this November, Trump could avoid the charges altogether by having the Justice Department end the prosecutions or perhaps even by pardoning himself.

Continued at: www.politico.com...

Friday, February 2, 2024

Shrewd Trump w/Shrewd Lawyers ONCE AGAIN outsmarts his enemies. In WAR, anything goes. In a WAR against MAGA, Democrats (Judges, Prosecutors, Politicians, MSM) will always lose the WAR even if they win a couple of the battles.

Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Obama appointee who is overseeing Jack Smith’s January 6 case against Trump in DC formally postponed the trial on Friday.

On Thursday it was reported Jack Smith’s DC case against Trump had been removed from the court calendar. The March 4, 2024 trial date, which was scheduled before Super Tuesday, was dropped from the calendar within the last week.

Judge Chutkan in an order Friday postponed the trial and told the prospective jurors who were asked to fill out a pre-trial questionnaire not to appear in court next week.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

originally posted by: WeMustCare
1/30/2024

Question: Could the Supreme Court issue a ruling that "carves out" certain actions of a sitting President as NOT being immune from Prosecution? (Shooting someone, Insurrection, Treason, Orange tan, etc..)

Yes they could.

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: WeMustCare
1/30/2024

Question: Could the Supreme Court issue a ruling that "carves out" certain actions of a sitting President as NOT being immune from Prosecution? (Shooting someone, Insurrection, Treason, Orange tan, etc..)

Yes they could.

Based on what many migrants are doing in America, Joe Biden is committing TREASON by encouraging them to enter without being vetted. The media needs to show more of the carnage they cause, just like they show bleeding adults and children in GAZA.

February 18, 2024

The Supreme Court conservative majority should Watch MSNBC occasionally. Pay attention to what MSNBC personalities want, or are afraid of...

AND DO THE OPPOSITE!

Case in Point, re: Donald Trump's Jan 6 Immunity Decision: www.msnbc.com...

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

February 28, 2024

TODAY, the Supreme Court agreed to hear JACK SMITH's argument that Presidents are NOT IMMUNE from being prosecuted for things they did, or didn't do, while serving as U.S. President.

The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether Donald Trump may claim immunity in special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case, adding another explosive appeal from the former president to its docket and further delaying his federal trial.

The court agreed to expedite the case and hear arguments the week of April 22.

More at: www.cnn.com...

Do YOU hope former Presidents ARE IMMUNE, or ARE NOT IMMUNE?

Many media outlets have apparently laid off the smartest (highest paid) reporters. They are giving the impression that DONALD TRUMP asked the Supreme Court to rule on if he can/can-not be held liable for (alleged) crimes committed while in office.

IT WAS Special Counsel JACK SMITH who asked the Supreme Court to rule on this, back in December 2023.