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

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.

So it sure looks like you are fully admiting this entire fiasco is only about getting Trump before and during the election process.
Aren’t you admiting here this is election interference?
That this is and only matters if you can get Trump in the election year?
The reason for expedience and efficacy?

Because those reasons were supposed to be set in place to protect the innocent not prosecute a candidate.
I do not think political witch hunts are supposed to be motive for the justice system.
Maybe in a democracy but not in a Republic.

a reply to: WeMustCare

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.

Well, Trump did inspire HR 2678. Called the "No President Is Above The Law Act of 2020", passed through and then died in committee between the election and Jan 6th. Tried to be reintroduced in April by The House.

Limbo notice:

www.govinfo.gov...

Even removes the statute of limitations for such presidential offenses.

Offenses Committed by the President or Vice President During or Prior to Tenure in Office.--In the case of any person serving as President or Vice President of the United States, the duration of that person's tenure in office shall not be considered for purposes of any statute of limitations applicable to any Federal criminal offense committed by that person (including any offenses committed during any period of time preceding such tenure in office)

Had it passed, I guess even Nixon could be posthumously changed for breaking and entering or conspiracy therein.

And any Whitewater-related death liability for the Clinton's.

Extensive 80's Cocaine use for GW.

Or how his father had the CIA use a Jodie Foster-obsessed schizo to try to ascend him to the Presidency.


Joking aside, what I want to see is Trumps reaction if any of his 3 appointed judges rule against him.

If he is the total prototype villain megalomaniac he will blast their decision and remind them who appointed them in the first place. If he calls them traitors and goes all Karen (if they rule against him) that's about all the character insight people should need.

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.

BS......Congress would remove him if he tried anything crazy like the constitution permits. An impeachment with criminal referrals would be the correct way for that situation


I still believe the SC will find in his favor. You my guys are really spinning this one up.

The FACT remains: The only way Smith can prove Trump didn't have immunity, he has to show that Trump was not president during that time frame. Good luck with that.

originally posted by: Degradation33
If he calls them traitors and goes all Karen (if they rule against him) that's about all the character insight people should need.

So if Trump DOESN'T act like Trump, he'd have good character in your eyes? (He's been Trump all his life and little has changed over the years.)

a reply to: network dude

Pretty much. He needs the surgery they gave Zaphod Beeblebrox where they cut out the part of his personality that won't put a filter on the Machiavellian Prince.

I mean all great politicians are like that, but he's the first one to tweet it repeatedly. It was like, "there is our dyslexic president misspelling 4 letter words again as he rants on twitter. You lost. Listen to Pence. Get over it."

I like this as his song

I realize that's why everyone likes him, because he's so "authentic", but I don't like how he uses his authenticity to piss people off in defense of himself.

ETA:

The base of his following (his character appeal) is on a foundation of shared mistrust, desired control device, separation, culture war, victimhood, and things that come with revolution.

I'm not gonna revolution over abortions, oil, the border, and trannies with lovely state constitutions in place.

a reply to: RickinVa

SCOTUS in US v. Nixon has already ruled that executive privilege does not grant absolute immunity from judicial processes under all circumstances.

Smith and Democrats might be trying to set precedent and lump all crimes into one basket. Murder and Misdemeanors are not equal. 🍄

a reply to: Degradation33

The Trump Legal Team is ready to deliver major revelations, regardless of how the Supreme Court Rules.

Thread on Classified Election Fraud Evidence 2b Presented: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RickinVa

SCOTUS in US v. Nixon has already ruled that executive privilege does not grant absolute immunity from judicial processes under all circumstances.

You do know there is a huge difference between presidential immunity and executive privilege.

The Court held that the presidential privilege is not absolute. The presidential privilege for confidential communications that do not concern the military, diplomacy or sensitive national security secrets may be rebutted as a result of the constitutional requirement to produce all relevant evidence in criminal cases. The Court stated that a general claim of presidential privilege based on public interest in confidentiality will not overcome the interest of justice in producing all evidence that is relevant.

We will see what the SC rules...it's right around the corner.

Do you agree with the white house counsel retroactively denying Trumps claim of presidential priviledge and then filing charges based on that?



Right now, there is no one running for president that I would vote for.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Unless you are Bill Clinton.

people tend to not know the whole point of our president, but its supposed to be a replacement of a king in an attempt to emulate platos ideal of the best government, or a balance between king, aristocracy and the people, so the president is indeed immune to prosecution, that's the whole reason we have the impeachment process, as a reprimand rather than prison time.

a reply to: namehere

A arguably better way to frame it is that because of the separation of powers, there is no one that has the power to remove a president. Like the president can't remove congress critters or SCOTUS justices.

The impeachment process exists for that specific purpose.

a reply to: namehere

The very first time a President was subpoenaed was Thomas Jefferson during the 1807 trial of Aaron Burr. In his opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall defended issuing the subpoena by stating the President is a much different position than a king.

a reply to: JinMI

But Trump is no longer President and his actions to overturn to the election were taken as a candidate, not as President. So why should he not be held accountable for actions that fall outside his duties as President?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

But Trump is no longer President and his actions to overturn to the election were taken as a candidate, not as President. So why should he not be held accountable for actions that fall outside his duties as President?

Yea, the argument where you try to convince people that having secure elections arent' part of presidential duties are gonna be a hard on to swallow.


G'luck.

a reply to: namehere

...so the president is indeed immune to prosecution, that's the whole reason we have the impeachment process, as a reprimand rather than prison time.

So, if POTUS murders somebody, and buries the body in the Rose Garden, and nobody finds out until he's out of office, the now former POTUS can't be charged? Is that your assertion?

Mitch McConnel told us the Senate was unable to impeach Trump, because he was out of office at the time of the Senate trial, and "you can't impeach an individual who is not a sitting president. That doesn't seem to work either.

a reply to: JinMI

Its going to be very hard to for him to argue he was acting as President when every single action was made outside government channels. Or that the rally on J6 was an official Presidential event when it was paid for by his campaign.

He was in charge of the largest intelligence and investigative networks in the world and yet he was relying on people like a couple of alcoholic lawyers, a former crackhead, and a random bail bondsman.

a reply to: Threadbarer

So now you've reached the inevitable conclusion of the authoritarian position of Trump needing to prove his innocence.

He was in charge of the largest intelligence and investigative networks in the world and yet he was relying on people like a couple of alcoholic lawyers, a former crackhead, and a random bail bondsman.

Evidenced by what exactly? The same networks illegally spying on him? The same networks prosecuting him on legal questions that should be answered LONG before prosecutions?

Your logic is broken as usual.

a reply to: Threadbarer

You Said...

But Trump is no longer President and his actions to overturn to the election were taken as a candidate, not as President. So why should he not be held accountable for actions that fall outside his duties as President?

I Say...

But Trump was no longer a candidate and his actions to overturn to the election were taken as a President, not as candidate. So why should he be held accountable for actions that fall within his duties as President which would be to make sure there was a fair and secure election?

He was the president talking to US Citizens. I do not know why this is so hard.

So, when Beyonce sang to Michelle or Jay-Z sang to Obama, was he not acting at that time in a presidential capacity? Do you see how odd this is?

When a president has sex with his wife, since it is a personal act, is he not president then?

a reply to: JinMI

No, I've reached the conclusion that we're in a gray area pertaining to Presidential immunity that will need to be clarified by the Supreme Court. I've also reached the conclusion, based on the Justices' previous comments on cases like US v. Nixon they're liable to go with a narrow definition of Presidential immunity.