Read Jack Smith’s unsealed redacted motion on Trump presidential immunity

originally posted by: xuenchen

Oooops. How embarrassing for the lying Liberals.
Facts will get them every time.

Hilarious sound track, by the way.

a reply to: Vermilion

Are you kidding me? She set a trial date for March of this year. After his numerous delays and requests for dismissal he appealed to circuit Court in December. They upheld Chutkins decision. It then went to Scotus. Scotus then took 6 months to decide the outcome. Then they sent it back to Chutkin to determine the immunity issue. To do so, the DOJ filed so the matter of immunity can be resolved. Trump is now requesting that his answer to the filing be delayed until after the election.

Please link and quote where Scotus stated she should not have set a trial date and should have had an evidentiary hearing before Trump asked for a dismissal, which was not granted and when he appealed up to the 2 courts which put us right back where we are.

a reply to: Vermilion

Actually a President pardoning himself is not a settled matter. The constitution does not state he cannot.

During the federal Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in 1787, Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, wanted to make an exception to the vast presidential pardon powers proposed for treason. Randolph feared a president could be involved in a treasonous plot, directing his allies to carry out a conspiracy. But founder James Wilson, who later became a Supreme Court justice, argued that if a president is a party to treason, he could be impeached and removed, and then prosecuted. Wilson's thinking ultimately prevailed. 

"The Supreme Court would ultimately have to decide on the legitimacy of a self-pardon," Kalt said. "It is unclear exactly how a self-pardon would end up there, but that is the most likely outcome."

And he apparently has discussed this before.

In 2020, just before he left office, Trump, according to the New York Times, considered granting himself, as well as his family and allies, preemptive pardons

CBS News

Hey, what happened to that documents case?

a reply to: frogs453

Also does not explicitly state Presidential Duties but here we are right ?

a reply to: RazorV66

Likely a Maga supporting cop, one of these 30 investigated for their behavior that day.

NPR

Heck one was convicted for telling a rioter to destroy evidence after the fact and is in prison.

a reply to: matafuchs

Presidential duties are pretty defined as official acts of office. You know, unlike hiring random whacky non WH lawyers and work with yourcampaign to create a scheme to overturn the election.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

Are you kidding me? She set a trial date for March of this year. After his numerous delays and requests for dismissal he appealed to circuit Court in December. They upheld Chutkins decision. It then went to Scotus. Scotus then took 6 months to decide the outcome. Then they sent it back to Chutkin to determine the immunity issue. To do so, the DOJ filed so the matter of immunity can be resolved. Trump is now requesting that his answer to the filing be delayed until after the election.

Please link and quote where Scotus stated she should not have set a trial date and should have had an evidentiary hearing before Trump asked for a dismissal, which was not granted and when he appealed up to the 2 courts which put us right back where we are.

No I’m not kidding you.
You libs think ruining a citizens constitutional rights is a joke.

Smith asked for a 3 week delay after he already had the SCOTUS decision for 40 days.
So quit whining about delays.

Why do you keep dodging my question?

Why didn’t Chutkan hold an evidentiary hearing about POTUS immunity at the beginning?

You know SCOTUS thrashed Chutkan and Smith in their decision, specifically for not holding evidentiary hearings on immunity and being overall too hasty, so I don’t need to quote that.

originally posted by: matafuchs
Hey, what happened to that documents case?

It's on the desk of the 11th district court of appeals right now. Who have already reversed some of her prior decisions in the case. We will see.

a reply to: Vermilion

Yes I do request the quote and a link.

And as she had scheduled the trial date any evidentiary hearing would have come before that. However last year not long after the first filings, Trump sent her decision of not dismissing it to 2 courts. Never even got a chance to get anywhere. Trump fought tooth and nail to get out of it.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66

Likely a Maga supporting cop, one of these 30 investigated for their behavior that day.

NPR

Heck one was convicted for telling a rioter to destroy evidence after the fact and is in prison.

When Trump wins, all the Jan 6th political prisoners get pardoned.

Start crying now.....oh wait, you've never stopped crying.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

Actually a President pardoning himself is not a settled matter. The constitution does not state he cannot.

During the federal Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in 1787, Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, wanted to make an exception to the vast presidential pardon powers proposed for treason. Randolph feared a president could be involved in a treasonous plot, directing his allies to carry out a conspiracy. But founder James Wilson, who later became a Supreme Court justice, argued that if a president is a party to treason, he could be impeached and removed, and then prosecuted. Wilson's thinking ultimately prevailed. 

"The Supreme Court would ultimately have to decide on the legitimacy of a self-pardon," Kalt said. "It is unclear exactly how a self-pardon would end up there, but that is the most likely outcome."

And he apparently has discussed this before.

In 2020, just before he left office, Trump, according to the New York Times, considered granting himself, as well as his family and allies, preemptive pardons

CBS News

It’s not settled and anyone who tries will get slapped down.
So no, POTUS can’t pardon himself.
Nobody can self pardon.

Nemo judex in causa sua
"no one is judge in their own case"
en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: RazorV66

Yep. All those cop attacking dudes back on the street. The Seditionists free. "Back the blue!" "Law and order!" Or well, actually Maga doesn't mean those cop attackers. Since those are the ones in jail right now. Some of them with great histories, tried to drown an ex girlfriend, threatened to shoot his kids, held a gun to his wife's head, various other violent crimes before the 6th. You know, good "Patriots" Smdh.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66

Yep. All those cop attacking dudes back on the street. The Seditionists free. "Back the blue!" "Law and order!" Or well, actually Maga doesn't mean those cop attackers. Since those are the ones in jail right now. Some of them with great histories, tried to drown an ex girlfriend, threatened to shoot his kids, held a gun to his wife's head, various other violent crimes before the 6th. You know, good "Patriots" Smdh.

See what I mean?
Always crying.

Edit - If they are such bad dudes, they can get them for something else then.

Pardon them for the Democrat railroad setup job.

a reply to: RazorV66

Oh I'm not crying at all. Unless it's with laughter at the hypocrisy.

I see a lot of people lining up with a prosecutor from the ICC - of which the US of A doesn't even recognize ...
One thing for Sure

History Will be Written By the Victor

NCSWIC

a reply to: Vermilion

You won't accept anything. You're delusional.

6th amendment rights don't apply to this case either.

Froggo has presented many facts on this matter, I've mentioned at least four solid pieces of evidence for you to follow, but you are waiting for it to be taken up by the Supreme Court. You want your fantasy dictator to challenge the Supreme Court, an entity that should stay out of politics.

You're a zealot.

a reply to: frogs453

Is that so or just an opinion. Sounds like an opinion. Talking to people who are attending a speech by a president, during the day in DC, is a presidential act. He is talking to US citizens. HE was also not campaigning the election was over...but he was still President.

They were questioning an election and its integrity. That is how it works. Then, the states could recount to re-certify and when it showed Biden actually won....end it.

They did it in 2000 and it allowed Bush to win.

The SCOTUS convened...twice. This was only about one state. They actually decided to stop the recount. So do not try and tell anyone that things like this cannot happen or have not. The new electors in that election were not called fake they were called alternates...which is normal.

If there was a real case, and I have said this before, Donald Trump would be in jail already.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

Yes I do request the quote and a link.

And as she had scheduled the trial date any evidentiary hearing would have come before that. However last year not long after the first filings, Trump sent her decision of not dismissing it to 2 courts. Never even got a chance to get anywhere. Trump fought tooth and nail to get out of it.

Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, and the very significant constitutional questions that it raises, the lower courts rendered their decisions on a highly expedited basis.
Because those courts categorically rejected any form of Presidential immunity, they did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial.
Page 16

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66

Likely a Maga supporting cop, one of these 30 investigated for their behavior that day.

NPR

Heck one was convicted for telling a rioter to destroy evidence after the fact and is in prison.

Those that got all the attention were part of the setup. And the ones in prison are not even the real characters that were paid. No proof any of it was true. 🤣

And of course that NPR article forces people to automatically believe the whole thing was an insurrection, right in the first sentence. 🤣🤣

AND, that article was only a few weeks after Jan6 and they already had the conclusions instilled in peoples' heads 🤣🤣🤣