Supreme Court Oral Arguments 4.25.2024 - Are PRESIDENTS IMMUNE From Later Being Prosecuted.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Justice Alito Destroys Jack Smith’s Prosecutor During Trump Immunity Oral Arguments with One Question (AUDIO) 😃

Says the Gateway Pundit.

Didn't they just file for bankruptcy?

a reply to: Annee

Chapter 11 reorganization is what they just filed for. If you were to care enough to see what the Biden administration was doing to them, you would understand why.

The Trump administration will do the same things to certain left-wing media outlets next year... only 10 times worse.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Justice Alito Destroys Jack Smith’s Prosecutor During Trump Immunity Oral Arguments with One Question (AUDIO) 😃

As expected, the liberal justices, similar to the appellate court judges, floated absurd hypotheticals.

The justices then had the opportunity to grill Jack Smith’s prosecutor Michael Dreeben. Recall that Dreeben was one of Mueller’s goons in the special counsel’s ‘Trump-Russia’ inquisition.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito destroyed DOJ prosecutor Michael Dreeben with one question.

“If the president gets advice from the attorney general, that something is lawful, is that an absolute defense?” Alito asked Dreeben.

“Yes, I think that it is,” Dreeben said.

“But won’t that give presidents incentive to be sure to pick an Attorney General who will reliably tell the president that it is lawful to do whatever the president wants to do if there’s any possible argument in favor of it?” Alito asked Dreeben.

“I think the Constitutional structure protects against that risk. The president nominates the attorney general and the Senate provides advice and consent,” Dreeben said.

Legal analysts are weighing in to say today was a good day for Donald Trump at the United States Supreme court.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Annee

Chapter 11 reorganization is what they just filed for. If you were to care enough to see what the Biden administration was doing to them, you would understand why.

The Trump administration will do the same things to certain left-wing media outlets next year... only 10 times worse.

This is not about Biden.

Now, they keep bringing up this can a president kill a political rival? Why? There is more reason to this.

originally posted by: matafuchs
Now, they keep bringing up this can a president kill a political rival? Why? There is more reason to this.

That’s a pretty exact reason.

a reply to: Annee

a reply to: matafuchs

Id say that rubicon was crossed under obama when he launched a drone strike on an american citizen and everyone said well he was a bad guy.

eta: Considering the hit job by the media on trump at the behest of the left, if we follow this to the logical conclusion I fully expect a stazi style hit before Nov.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Annee

Chapter 11 reorganization is what they just filed for. If you were to care enough to see what the Biden administration was doing to them, you would understand why.

The Trump administration will do the same things to certain left-wing media outlets next year... only 10 times worse.

This is not about Biden.

Is it about The Gateway Pundit?

originally posted by: matafuchs
Now, they keep bringing up this can a president kill a political rival? Why? There is more reason to this.

It’s just more virtue signaling from them because “Trump is so mean and vindictive and while he was president he locked up and murdered all his political opponents and if he’s elected again he’s going to be even worse reeeeeee.”

The fed lawyers got lit up today.
They better stock up on the tissue because there’s gonna be an awful lot of crying going on when the decision comes out.

Excuses and deflection.

Never seen that before s/

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: matafuchs

Id say that rubicon was crossed under obama when he launched a drone strike on an american citizen and everyone said well he was a bad guy.

Remember the time Biden killed those 10 innocent family members (7 children) in that airstrike?
www.aclu.org...

a reply to: Irishhaf

Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data

Less than two weeks ago, the United States conducted a drone strike over central Yemen, killing one al-Qaeda operative. The strike was the last under Obama (that we know of). The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians.


As he reportedly told senior aides in 2011: “Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”

2015

WHEN WILL OBAMA APOLOGIZE FOR ALL THE OTHER INNOCENT VICTIMS OF DRONE STRIKES?

originally posted by: matafuchs
Now, they keep bringing up this can a president kill a political rival? Why? There is more reason to this.

Well if the Democrat "Patterns" are true to form, then __________ it's like they're trying to pin it on somebody else for what they will be guilty of. ☠️

a reply to: Vermilion

Remember when Trump was killing so many innocents with drones that he stopped releasing those numbers before revoking the rule requiring those numbers to be reported?

Here’s a 32 second audio clip which sums up the Feds impotent arguments today.
Alito playing chess while the Feds still playing checkers.
twitter.com...

It's hilarious watching Leftists who (shockingly) don't understand what the SCOTUS does think that they're ruling about what should happen to Trump.

They're going to be ruling whether or not this should happen to any president.

If they establish that there's no immunity, every president is going to be charged with crimes from now on.

How about a class action lawsuit by We The People to get some money that was given away back .... Is there a Lawyer in the House ? I can show harm from all these billions - I want a Refund.

a reply to: WeMustCare

If I recall, the Muller report did not lay charges against the sitting President due to Constitutional implications.

But Trump is no longer a sitting President, so those implications are no longer relevant.

However, placing anybody above the law, for any reason, is clearly a politically corrupt practice.

It implies that a US President could murder the entire Congress of the US, and get away with it. Because they would be immune from prosecution under civil and criminal law, and couldn't be impeached by a Congress that doesn't exist.

And Nixon was pardoned from all the crimes he committed as President, by the next President, Gerald Ford. Why do that, if a President is immune from prosecution?

MSNBC wrote this on February 28th..

The Supreme Court has decided to review Donald Trump’s far-fetched immunity claim, a move that will at least further delay the former president’s federal election interference case from going to trial.

The justices will hear oral arguments the week of April 22. The high court will review the following question, per the court’s order Wednesday granting review:

"Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

Source: www.msnbc.com...

I enjoyed listening to MSNBC today (XM-Radio) after the Oral Arguments session was finished. The so-called "legal" people on the network are now saying the Supreme Court's only job is to rule if former President Trump is Immune, or not Immune from being prosecuted for attempting to overturn a U.S. election and Presidency (Joe Biden's, LOL).

JUST MAYBE, the Justices' ruling on this case will cause this to be the time that an MSNBC "personality" starts screaming and crying (or worse!) on the air.

The "Trump Must Remain on All State Ballots" ruling made several TV Liberals have moments of brain-fart silence. Now, if we could make this ruling 10 times more traumatic....Boom!...A very good day for MAGA supporters. 😎