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

a reply to: Mahogani

Former President Trump became a 2024 candidate on November 15, 2022. Was he indicted before that date as you state he was?

Nov 15, 2022: en.wikipedia.org...

He's the frontrunner now. SCOTUS will place that under the column of reasons for NOT BEING INDICTED.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Mahogani

Former President Trump became a 2024 candidate on November 15, 2022. Was he indicted before that date as you state he was?

March 2023 indictment in New York

June 2023 federal indictment in Florida

August 2023 federal indictment in Washington, D.C.

August 2023 indictment in Georgia

His indictments followed him saying he wanted to be president again. No immunity is created by running for any political office. Not only that, his investigation wasn't secret, it was very public.

JOE BIDEN understands how THE TARGETING SYSTEM works...

The 81-year-old president has suggested to close associates that if he hadn't run in 2020, Hunter wouldn't be facing criminal prosecutions or be the target of daily stories by conservative media — all while trying to stay sober and rebuild his life.

More at: www.axios.com...

a reply to: JinMI

The delays in the J6 trials have been caused by pretrial motions filed by the defense.

a reply to: Mahogani

There's also the fact that the Impeachment Judgment Clause clearly lays out that former Presidents can be indicted and face punishment for crimes committed while in office.

a reply to: DBCowboy

As was already pointed out, every single indictment came before Trump announced his candidacy.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: DBCowboy

Wait...wait....wait...WAIT!


Are you implying that the DoJ is only charging him all this time later AND wanting an expedient trial because it will have an impact on the 2024 elections????


Mind Blown

Everyone has been talking around the topic but not enough people have said it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Except you of course.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: DBCowboy

As was already pointed out, every single indictment came before Trump announced his candidacy.

Yet Trump has always been seen as political opposition to Biden. So political crimes can only be committed against persons running for office?

a reply to: WeMustCare

He's the frontrunner now. SCOTUS will place that under the column of reasons for NOT BEING INDICTED.

Does that apply to any office, or just the presidency? Does it apply only to popular, front runner candidates, or any candidate?

originally posted by: Mahogani

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Mahogani

Former President Trump became a 2024 candidate on November 15, 2022. Was he indicted before that date as you state he was?

March 2023 indictment in New York

June 2023 federal indictment in Florida

August 2023 federal indictment in Washington, D.C.

August 2023 indictment in Georgia

His indictments followed him saying he wanted to be president again. No immunity is created by running for any political office. Not only that, his investigation wasn't secret, it was very public.

Because of EO13848 those that seek indictments because their political campaigns were funded by the likes of Soros and clearly campaigned they will stop Trump if elected have the criteria met where they can have their assets seized and bank accounts frozen if their reasons are to interfere with our federal elections.

If it wasn't for the fact that these frivolous cases are offering the opportunity to enter into the court system all the election fraud network I am fairly certain most of the election fraud enablers would have already been prosecuted and removed.

Instead we have a patiently awaited unraveling and unveiling election interference scheme front and center for election season.
For those wondering.
It's a tarp.
Enjoy the show.
Plot twists just make the movie better and the climax exciting and entertaining.
This is no chick flick.

Candidate Trump.
Best hope you have all that Soros money hidden away from prying eyes.
Because there is a new definition for "broke" coming.
And it's Bidens fault.
He signed off on it twice.
It is almost like nobody sees it coming.
Just some obscure EO
But it is the script for this movie.
And it is playing scene by scene for the world to witness.
SHOWTIME

In a case that may portend the outcome of this case, the 2nd Circuit just ruled that Trump did not have Presidential immunity when he made defamatory statements about E. Jean Carroll while President, allowing the lawsuit scheduled for next month to move forward.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Who cares? Really? E Jean Carroll is another grifter who brought up accusations, where there was no criminal conviction, in the SAME NY court system.

10 million dollars for comments? F that.....

a reply to: matafuchs

An appellate court just ruled that Presidential immunity is not absolute. That seems pretty pertinent to this thread.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: matafuchs

An appellate court just ruled that Presidential immunity is not absolute. That seems pretty pertinent to this thread.

They took the time to tell everybody something that is common sense?

a reply to: WeMustCare

So Trump's lawyers lack common sense for making the argument in the first place?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WeMustCare

So Trump's lawyers lack common sense for making the argument in the first place?

Guilty of what?

And things are different for government.

Like you can’t personally can’t bomb or booby trap a house, but the government can.

There are many aspects of the presidency that are in a similar fashion. That’s pretty understandable.

a reply to: Threadbarer

So now it goes to the SCOTUS. Lower courts are controlled. You know that. I know that. We all know that just from looking at theses ridiculous trials.

My response was you bringing up Carroll.

a reply to: matafuchs

So if SCOTUS rules the same way are they also controlled?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Nice one. They might hear the case but I am not sure if they will offer a ruling. They can offer to hear it and still reject. This is unprecedented. No president has every been charged with a crime before. It is different than an impeachment proceeding.

He was in office that day as president. Whether you or Jack Smith like it or not.

The SCOTUS has never ruled on this. The DOJ has a standing rule you cannot indict a sitting president because it could, if they were convicted but not impeached, cause serious issues in the Executive Branch. Why not just pardon themselves? They also cannot be charged in state cases.

The SCOTUS also ruled that the president sitting cannot be sued civilaly. This was a NIxon lawysuit.

The only thing the Constitution states the president is actually entitled to is a salary.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Threadbarer

So now it goes to the SCOTUS. Lower courts are controlled. You know that. I know that. We all know that just from looking at theses ridiculous trials.

My response was you bringing up Carroll.

Tis Good to see the Supreme Court taking on cases more important than baking cakes for gays and lesbians and trannies and queers.

Supreme Court agrees to hear Jan. 6 case that could affect Trump prosecution

The justices will consider whether a charge for seeking to obstruct an official proceeding, which Trump also faces, can be applied to the events on Jan. 6, 2021.

Source: www.nbcnews.com...