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

a reply to: Threadbarer

Should be a pretty simple test.


What part of Trumps conduct can't be argued was presidential duties?

a reply to: JinMI

Conspiring with a small group of people to illegally present themselves as the duly appointed electors for a number of swing states in an effort to change the results of the election.

a reply to: Threadbarer

None of that is set in fact nor been litigated.


So that's a fail.

Try again>

a reply to: JinMI

But it has been litigated. Judge Chutkan has ruled that Trump's alleged actions fall outside the outer perimeter of Presidential duty and as a result are not covered by immunity.

It's the whole reason Trump started this appeal process.

a reply to: JinMI

I am. Chutkan has already ruled those actions aren't covered by immunity.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Those actions havn't been proven to have happened.

Furthermore, without litigation they can't then be used as impetus for judgement.


Thus why its a SCOTUS question..

a reply to: Threadbarer

Discussing with a small group of people to present themselves as the duly appointed electors after a review of the current process is completed when the VP sends certification back to the states.

When did Judge Chutkan become the know all/be all of the Constitution? Seems they want to enforce certain parts but then you get to the 1A and they gag ya.....

She can 'rule' anyways she wants but it is her interpretation. One that fits the view of restricting the leading candidate for the presidential election from being treated fairly.

When the SCOTUS rules....will you accept it? or will you call them all corrupt?

a reply to: JinMI

The events happened. They were included in the DOJ's indictment and in other court filings. Trump's lawyers have never objected to their inclusion. What hasn't been decided is whether or not those events constitute a crime.

Trump's lawyers have argued they don't constitute a crime due to Presidential immunity and have requested the case be dismissed. Chutkan did not agree with Trump's lawyers' argument and ruled the events are not covered by immunity.

a reply to: Threadbarer

They were included in the DOJ's indictment and in other court filings.

Yes, we are well aware that it's been asserted or alleged.

The trial has yet to even begin.


So no, it's not been litigated let alone proven.

Which is my point.

a reply to: matafuchs

It is her interpretation and if the DC Circuit or SCOTUS choose to kick the case back to the lower courts it is the ruling that will stand.

a reply to: JinMI

So Chutkan's ruling that the events are not covered by immunity doesn't exist?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

So Chutkan's ruling that the events are not covered by immunity doesn't exist?

Chutkins ruling is improper as far as jurisprudence.


Dicta doesn't equal judgement.

And when that dicta comes at the cost of the adversarial process, you've a constitutional crisis.

You even said it yourself:

It is her interpretation...

a reply to: JinMI

How is it improper to rule on a motion brought forward by a party in the case?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Not a motion.

A matter of judgement and law.

Big difference.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Without the LEGAL Jury Process in this Case , Mr. Trump is Assured of a Claim of Mistrial by the " Letter Of The LAW " . This does not have to go the the SCOTUS for a Ruling you more than Likely will NEVER see , but the Appeals Court , and it will Rule in his Favor of a Mistrial by the " Letter Of The LAW " .



* Question is How Long Will that take ? It's Obvious by Now that " THEY " want to have Mr. Trump in the Court Room instead of the Campaign Trail for the Next 10 Months Thinking it Will Effect his Ability to Sway the Voters . Well , as Usual , that Won't Work " This " Time ...........

a reply to: JinMI

It was a motion to dismiss the case from Trump's team on grounds that Trump's actions were covered by immunity. Chutkan rejected the motion.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Only one side keeps delaying these cases and it's not the DOJ. The whole reason the DOJ is trying to get a writ of certiorari before judgment on the appellate level is so they can try and preserve the trial start date of March 4th.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

It was a motion to dismiss the case from Trump's team on grounds that Trump's actions were covered by immunity. Chutkan rejected the motion.

Which isn't the same as ruling and judgement that what you described actually happened.


That's why we've an adversarial process.

...and an appeal process.


Judges like Chutkan and Angoran.

12/12/2023

It's amazing (and tragic) how mentally dulled most media reporters, journalists, and political "experts" have become.

All anyone with an IQ higher than President Biden has to do, is look at the last 2 years, to see how Trump becomes more popular as Evil Deep State thugs throw more arrows and bombs in his direction.

A VERY RARE INTELLIGENT JOURNALIST WITH COMMON SENSE SPEAKS...

Special Counsel Jack Smith's rare petition to the Supreme Court could backfire and help former President Donald Trump prove his point about the Department of Justice, political strategists told Newsweek.

Smith asked the high court to take up Trump's immunity claim in a Monday petition, and the justices almost immediately granted the request for expedited consideration on what federal prosecutors described as being "a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office."

But the DOJ's request hinges on Trump's status not only as a former president but as the 2024 Republican frontrunner. In other words, the Supreme Court would have been unlikely to take up the matter if it was not Trump at the center of the case. That fact, however, underscores the point that Trump has tried to repeatedly make since the various federal investigations and subsequent indictments into him began.

"The filing reinforces the image among a significant portion of the Republican electorate that two systems of justice exist—one for Donald Trump and one for everyone else," GOP strategist Matt Klink told Newsweek.

Source: www.newsweek.com...