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

a reply to: Dandandat3

The BIG PRIZE = Trump sworn in as President on 1/20/2025. All these other things are sideline entertainment displays, by comparison.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: LeXoXeL

Trump has never been a dictator, Biden has.

I hope that makes it easier to understand.

Trump knows that Democrats always project their own activities onto Republicans. Like when Joe Biden yelled, "Republicans abuse little kids and drink their blood!".

originally posted by: Mahogani

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?

Jack Smith is trying to save time and keep the March trial date.

The DC Court of Appeals (link) has 9 democrat appointees, and 5 republican ones. He'd most likely get a favorable outcome through appeals... but it would still go up to Supreme Court. It wastes time.

This way, he has a ruling from the district court, and he's taking it directly up.

That's not fear, that's expedience and efficacy.

We should just eliminate the appellate court all together and bring everything from district to Supreme court. Much more expedient and efficient that way.

Than again why even have district courts. All maters should just be put before the Supreme Court to decide. That's even more efficient and expedient.

No no no, what am I thinking. We shouldn't even bother with the Supreme Court, that will just add unneeded delays to serving justice. Why not just let the law enforcement part of government decide who is and is not guilty after a fair and impartial investigation?

But then again who needs investigations getting in the way of serving justice? Just let the law enforcement part of government decide who is guilty and who is innocent.

If you really want expedient and efficient justice just let one person, like the president for example, decide who is guilty and innocent.

The process was created the way it is for a reason.


ETA:

It is interesting how your argument relies on the biased political leanings of the appeals court being made up of a majority of democrats. Shouldn't it not matter what political make up the court may have? Shouldn't their rulings be impartial? If so what does it matter if the court is majority democrat.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Dandandat3

The BIG PRIZE = Trump sworn in as President on 1/20/2025. All these other things are sideline entertainment displays, by comparison.

Eh not much of a prize.

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Dandandat3

The BIG PRIZE = Trump sworn in as President on 1/20/2025. All these other things are sideline entertainment displays, by comparison.

Eh not much of a prize.

It's all relative, depending on who you're talking to. Some people felt like they hit the million dollar lottery when Obama was elected.

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Dandandat3

The BIG PRIZE = Trump sworn in as President on 1/20/2025. All these other things are sideline entertainment displays, by comparison.

Eh not much of a prize.

It's all relative, depending on who you're talking to. Some people felt like they hit the million dollar lottery when Obama was elected.

His presidency was unfortunately a missed opportunity for Hope and Change, I'll give you that.

Smith is trying to speed up the trial. Just like he is not allowing Trumps lawyers access to the 1/6 files. Why is that? Because it does not exist. It was a TV show.....

LEGAL EXPERT SAYS

If the Supreme Court rules in President Trump's favor...

Honig warned both Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ cases against Trump could be “out the window” if the Supreme Court sides with the former president.

“If Donald Trump is to win here, obviously Jack Smith’s federal election interference case is out the window,” Honig said during a Monday segment of “The Lead with Jake Tapper.” “I also think Fani Willis’ case is doomed. Yes, that is a state-level case, but the principles of immunity would apply whether it’s a federal or state-level prosecution. Again, that’s if Trump wins.”

Extracted from: dailycaller.com...

originally posted by: matafuchs
Smith is trying to speed up the trial. Just like he is not allowing Trumps lawyers access to the 1/6 files. Why is that? Because it does not exist. It was a TV show.....

Isn't it illegal for the Prosecution to not share what evidence he/she has, with the Defense?

a reply to: WeMustCare

Yes. I have no idea how this is being allowed. If you are being accused of a riot on 1/6 why would you not be allowed to see any evidence that had been collected, by Congress mind you, that was used in a multi year investigation as well as an impeachment.

How could not that apply to the current case?

If you think this is still ok I am sure the lead tasted good when you ate it.

A President is a 24/7 365 job.

You're not the President for 2 hours because you have a rally. Technically If you're doing something that prevents you from your presidential duties, then the VP takes over. I don't remember any of that happening.



IMO, the SC will rule that he had Presidential immunity.

He had presidential immunity all day except for the time he spent at a rally. Total BS.

This guy is a f'n tool....

Link

What would this prove?

The witness would also determine the usages of the phones during the post-2020 election period, including on and around Jan. 6, 2021.

That includes the periods of time when the Twitter app was open on Trump's phone the day of the Capitol riot, per the court filing.

Really????

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Mahogani

I heard Trump tore the tags off his mattresses.

*boom*

Totally jail time for the Orange Man, bad.

Yeah? Who knows?

There's probably ketchup all over his walls too.

I don't care about his reaction, I care about how this case goes. I'm glad it might be taken up soon.

I don’t have a problem with this.

a reply to: WeMustCare

a reply to: RickinVa

Let's say the SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor. That means Biden can do anything in his power to stay in office if he loses next year and there's nothing that could be done to stop him.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RickinVa

Let's say the SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor. That means Biden can do anything in his power to stay in office if he loses next year and there's nothing that could be done to stop him.

that's true. And if he dies, and Trump becomes president, then he can also do the same, and be the Dictator he has always wanted to be. These are exciting times!

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: LeXoXeL

Trump has never been a dictator, Biden has.

I hope that makes it easier to understand.

Okay I understand now. You do want a dictator as long as it's Trump. You have stated many times that you want Trump as a president, I never stated once I wanted Biden as a president. So you like dictators. It's cool.

One mans dictator is another mans freedom fighter.

Says more about the voters and the media pulling their strings than candidates.

originally posted by: LeXoXeL

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: LeXoXeL

Trump has never been a dictator, Biden has.

I hope that makes it easier to understand.

Okay I understand now. You do want a dictator as long as it's Trump. You have stated many times that you want Trump as a president, I never stated once I wanted Biden as a president. So you like dictators. It's cool.

I just don't want democrats or a uniparty candidate.

originally posted by: LeXoXeL

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: LeXoXeL

Trump has never been a dictator, Biden has.

I hope that makes it easier to understand.

Okay I understand now. You do want a dictator as long as it's Trump. You have stated many times that you want Trump as a president, I never stated once I wanted Biden as a president. So you like dictators. It's cool.

Trump is a dictator as much as Obama is subverting the US Constitution.