- berryberry
- 02-28-2024, 08:51 PM
In Blow To Special Counsel Smith, SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Trump Immunity Appeal
- DNinja69
- 02-28-2024, 09:32 PM
“This is in no way what the Founders had in mind. Legal Experts and Scholars have stated that the President must have Full Presidential Immunity. A President must be free to make proper decisions. His mind must be clear, and he must not be guided by the fear of retribution!”
SCOTUS will not echo Trumps version but soon we will have a definitive ruling on the matter.
Trump's comments tell us what we already know. He was not trying to break the law following his eviction from the White House he simply doesn't give a shit what the law is.
Interesting perspective from someone claiming to be a Conservative.
Maybe being tough on crime only matters when you don't get caught doing something wrong.
SCOTUS will not echo Trumps version but soon we will have a definitive ruling on the matter.
Trump's comments tell us what we already know. He was not trying to break the law following his eviction from the White House he simply doesn't give a shit what the law is.
Interesting perspective from someone claiming to be a Conservative.
Maybe being tough on crime only matters when you don't get caught doing something wrong.
- tommy156
- 02-28-2024, 10:20 PM
In Blow To Special Counsel Smith, SCOTUS Agrees To Hear trump Immunity Appeal Originally Posted by berryberryThere's no "blow" to Jack Smith here. Jack Smith asked them to hear the case. Lol. He got what he asked for.
I must say that it's interesting you seem so sure that SCOTUS will rule in trump's favor (and against the U.S. Constitution). I don't know if it's going to end the way you want it to.
- Salty Again
- 02-28-2024, 10:27 PM
... Nope...
... Jack Smith tryed to force the Supreme Court to dodge the case.
Quick, quick, rule on the appeal!
They said - "Nope, we'll give it some considouration.
But don't move forward until we do."
#### Salty
... Jack Smith tryed to force the Supreme Court to dodge the case.
Quick, quick, rule on the appeal!
They said - "Nope, we'll give it some considouration.
But don't move forward until we do."
#### Salty
- tommy156
- 02-28-2024, 10:39 PM
... Nope...No, he absolutely asked them to hurry a ruling on the case. He didn't want them to dodge the case. He wanted them to issue a ruling.
... Jack Smith tryed to force the Supreme Court to dodge the case.
Quick, quick, rule on the appeal!
They said - "Nope, we'll give it some considouration.
But don't move forward until we do."
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
Just where ye be gettin' yer news, mate?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/14/u...-immunity.html
- Salty Again
- 02-28-2024, 10:44 PM
No, he absolutely asked them to hurry a ruling on the case. He didn't want them to dodge the case. He wanted them to issue a ruling.... The NY Times aint where I get it, mate.
Just where ye be gettin' yer news, mate?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/14/u...-immunity.html Originally Posted by tommy156
#### Salty
- tommy156
- 02-28-2024, 10:52 PM
- berryberry
- 02-29-2024, 09:32 AM
... Nope...You are spot on Salty. Jack Smith didn't ask for this. It was President Trump who did by his appeal
... Jack Smith tryed to force the Supreme Court to dodge the case.
Quick, quick, rule on the appeal!
They said - "Nope, we'll give it some considouration.
But don't move forward until we do."
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
Hell, just look at the leftists breaking down over this. One example
Rachel Maddow calls the Supreme Court's decision to hear the Trump immunity argument "B.S." She adds, "for you to say that this is something that the Court needs to decide because it's something that's unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bull-pucky."
Watch Madcow and two other MSNBC leftist losers
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/176...9gZEiz-cw&s=19
- berryberry
- 02-29-2024, 09:34 AM
And Salty she is just one of a multitude of leftist DNC media crying about this
In fact here is Glenn Greenwald on these leftist idiots:
The reason partisan Democrats like these 3 are so infuriated by the Supreme Court's decision to hear Trump's appeal is they believe the only real way to have Biden win is if Trump is convicted of crimes before the election.
It's classic authoritarian abuse of law for politics.
In fact here is Glenn Greenwald on these leftist idiots:
The reason partisan Democrats like these 3 are so infuriated by the Supreme Court's decision to hear Trump's appeal is they believe the only real way to have Biden win is if Trump is convicted of crimes before the election.
It's classic authoritarian abuse of law for politics.
- DNinja69
- 02-29-2024, 10:40 AM
"only real way to have Biden win" again...
Since the scoreboard is currently 1-0 to the Biden clan.
Unfortunately the scope of what SCOTUS will be deciding does not include the Trump claim that a President can pardon himself I do believe there is an avenue where that could happen and was hoping to see it play out at some point if for nothing else than my own bemusement
Since the scoreboard is currently 1-0 to the Biden clan.
Unfortunately the scope of what SCOTUS will be deciding does not include the Trump claim that a President can pardon himself I do believe there is an avenue where that could happen and was hoping to see it play out at some point if for nothing else than my own bemusement
- tommy156
- 02-29-2024, 01:13 PM
Do conservatives not realize that if SCOTUS grants "total immunity" to trump, that means Biden will have it too? While he's still in office? Lol. Shortsighted idiots better be careful what they wish for.
- bambino
- 02-29-2024, 03:01 PM
Do conservatives not realize that if SCOTUS grants "total immunity" to trump, that means Biden will have it too? While he's still in office? Lol. Shortsighted idiots better be careful what they wish for. Originally Posted by tommy156Most of Joey Bribes crimes were committed BEFORE he was President!!!!! DUH!!!! What you don’t realize, if SCOTUS shoots down immunity, all Presidents from Biden on down can be prosecuted for what they did WHILE in office!!!! Watch out Obama!!!!!
- Salty Again
- 02-29-2024, 03:24 PM
... Thanks, Bambino, THAT is what I was ready to
point out to Tommy. ...
... OBama and Biden and Hillary will surely have A LOT
to answer-for next year...
#### Salty
point out to Tommy. ...
... OBama and Biden and Hillary will surely have A LOT
to answer-for next year...
#### Salty
- lustylad
- 02-29-2024, 05:32 PM
The WSJ knows how to analyze this stuff. But I doubt if most trump-deranged leftists can even begin to understand the larger issues at stake. Way above their intellectual capacity.
The Supreme Court Trumps Jack Smith
The Justices are right to rule on Trump’s immunity claim even if it delays a trial.
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 29, 2024 6:38 pm ET
You can’t say the current Supreme Court lacks courage. The safe political play for the Justices would have been to dodge the issue of Donald Trump’s immunity from prosecution. But on Wednesday they decided to hear his appeal on the merits of the law and presidential power, though a ruling is sure to infuriate one side or the other.
Democrats were hoping the Justices would pass on the case and let the recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against immunity stand. But as we warned on Feb. 7, the sweeping and dismissive nature of the D.C. Circuit ruling made it more likely that the High Court would take the case. And here we are.
The Supreme Court put the question it will hear on appeal this way: “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.”
A key part of that sentence is “alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” In denying immunity, the trial judge and the D.C. Circuit panel blew past that point as if it didn’t exist. Yet that was a core part of the Supreme Court’s precedent on presidential immunity in Nixon v. Fitzgerald in 1982.
That was a civil case involving a lawsuit. But the Court clearly wants to consider whether that precedent applies to criminal prosecutions as well. The Justices in Nixon ruled that a former President had “absolute immunity” from lawsuits for official acts within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties, lest they make it impossible for a President to fulfill those duties while in office.
If a rush of lawsuits could be crippling to a Presidency, what about the threat of post-presidential prosecutions? The D.C. Circuit opinion suggested that this would be no problem for future Presidents because Mr. Trump poses a unique threat to the rule of law. But is the threat of jail less serious than the threat of civil liability?
Once the precedent of prosecuting a former President has been set, as it has by special counsel Jack Smith, why wouldn’t future Justice Departments do the same—starting, perhaps, with former President Biden in 2025? Mr. Trump has already said “Joe would be ripe for indictment.” The statute books are full of laws that a partisan prosecutor might exploit. The immunity question is important far beyond Mr. Trump’s fate.
It takes only four Justices to grant a writ to hear a case, so it isn’t clear how the Justices will come out. But there were no dissents on the order and it directed the D.C. Circuit to delay returning the case to the trial court until the Supreme Court rules. That suggests there are several Justices who want to clean up the appellate court’s legal overreach and consider whether Mr. Trump is immune from prosecution for acts that involve his official duties.
The appeal is a blow to special counsel Smith, who wants to begin his trial over Mr. Trump’s behavior relating to Jan. 6, 2021, before the election. That timeline is now up in the air. The Court set oral argument for the week of April 22, with a ruling likely in June. But the blame for delay doesn’t lie with the Court, which is following its normal process. The fault lies with the Justice Department for waiting so long to bring the case.
If the Court rules that Mr. Trump has some immunity from prosecution, it is likely to remand the case to the trial court for a factual finding on whether Mr. Trump’s alleged criminal acts were part of his official duties. That would take weeks and delay the trial until past the election or into 2025.
Even if the Court rules against Mr. Trump on immunity, the trial judge has suggested she’ll give the parties about three months to prepare for trial. That takes the start date into September. Will Attorney General Merrick Garland support a trial against a presidential candidate running against the AG’s boss only weeks from Election Day? This would fly in the face of Justice Department rules that advise against such politically consequential prosecutions close to an election. It might backfire politically too.
All of this underscores why prosecuting Mr. Trump as a political strategy was so unwise. The former President’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election was despicable, and it’s a strong reason to deny him so much power again.
But the lawfare strategy has already helped Mr. Trump win the GOP nomination. Now the most consequential case may be delayed past the election. The Manhattan hush money trial is set to begin on March 25, and Mr. Trump might be convicted by a Manhattan jury. But that case itself is so jerry-rigged and partisan that most voters might ignore it.
The Supreme Court will be attacked no matter how it rules, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already declared that “the Supreme Court is placing itself on trial” by hearing the appeal. No, the Court is doing its job to protect the constitutional order after Democrats decided they couldn’t trust the voters to defeat Mr. Trump.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme...an-6-f0008637?
The Supreme Court Trumps Jack Smith
The Justices are right to rule on Trump’s immunity claim even if it delays a trial.
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 29, 2024 6:38 pm ET
You can’t say the current Supreme Court lacks courage. The safe political play for the Justices would have been to dodge the issue of Donald Trump’s immunity from prosecution. But on Wednesday they decided to hear his appeal on the merits of the law and presidential power, though a ruling is sure to infuriate one side or the other.
Democrats were hoping the Justices would pass on the case and let the recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against immunity stand. But as we warned on Feb. 7, the sweeping and dismissive nature of the D.C. Circuit ruling made it more likely that the High Court would take the case. And here we are.
The Supreme Court put the question it will hear on appeal this way: “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.”
A key part of that sentence is “alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” In denying immunity, the trial judge and the D.C. Circuit panel blew past that point as if it didn’t exist. Yet that was a core part of the Supreme Court’s precedent on presidential immunity in Nixon v. Fitzgerald in 1982.
That was a civil case involving a lawsuit. But the Court clearly wants to consider whether that precedent applies to criminal prosecutions as well. The Justices in Nixon ruled that a former President had “absolute immunity” from lawsuits for official acts within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties, lest they make it impossible for a President to fulfill those duties while in office.
If a rush of lawsuits could be crippling to a Presidency, what about the threat of post-presidential prosecutions? The D.C. Circuit opinion suggested that this would be no problem for future Presidents because Mr. Trump poses a unique threat to the rule of law. But is the threat of jail less serious than the threat of civil liability?
Once the precedent of prosecuting a former President has been set, as it has by special counsel Jack Smith, why wouldn’t future Justice Departments do the same—starting, perhaps, with former President Biden in 2025? Mr. Trump has already said “Joe would be ripe for indictment.” The statute books are full of laws that a partisan prosecutor might exploit. The immunity question is important far beyond Mr. Trump’s fate.
It takes only four Justices to grant a writ to hear a case, so it isn’t clear how the Justices will come out. But there were no dissents on the order and it directed the D.C. Circuit to delay returning the case to the trial court until the Supreme Court rules. That suggests there are several Justices who want to clean up the appellate court’s legal overreach and consider whether Mr. Trump is immune from prosecution for acts that involve his official duties.
The appeal is a blow to special counsel Smith, who wants to begin his trial over Mr. Trump’s behavior relating to Jan. 6, 2021, before the election. That timeline is now up in the air. The Court set oral argument for the week of April 22, with a ruling likely in June. But the blame for delay doesn’t lie with the Court, which is following its normal process. The fault lies with the Justice Department for waiting so long to bring the case.
If the Court rules that Mr. Trump has some immunity from prosecution, it is likely to remand the case to the trial court for a factual finding on whether Mr. Trump’s alleged criminal acts were part of his official duties. That would take weeks and delay the trial until past the election or into 2025.
Even if the Court rules against Mr. Trump on immunity, the trial judge has suggested she’ll give the parties about three months to prepare for trial. That takes the start date into September. Will Attorney General Merrick Garland support a trial against a presidential candidate running against the AG’s boss only weeks from Election Day? This would fly in the face of Justice Department rules that advise against such politically consequential prosecutions close to an election. It might backfire politically too.
All of this underscores why prosecuting Mr. Trump as a political strategy was so unwise. The former President’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election was despicable, and it’s a strong reason to deny him so much power again.
But the lawfare strategy has already helped Mr. Trump win the GOP nomination. Now the most consequential case may be delayed past the election. The Manhattan hush money trial is set to begin on March 25, and Mr. Trump might be convicted by a Manhattan jury. But that case itself is so jerry-rigged and partisan that most voters might ignore it.
The Supreme Court will be attacked no matter how it rules, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already declared that “the Supreme Court is placing itself on trial” by hearing the appeal. No, the Court is doing its job to protect the constitutional order after Democrats decided they couldn’t trust the voters to defeat Mr. Trump.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme...an-6-f0008637?
- berryberry
- 02-29-2024, 09:59 PM
... Thanks, Bambino, THAT is what I was ready toThat's true if they find immunity doesn't app!y to Presidents which is utterly silly. I mean Judges and prosecutors are immune from criminal prosecution for their official & judicial acts.
point out to Tommy. ...
... OBama and Biden and Hillary will surely have A LOT
to answer-for next year...
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
The members of Congress are immune from criminal prosecution for their legislative function acts.
Ask yourself: Why wouldn’t the President also be immune?
Then as Lusty posted from the excellent WSJ analysis, it was funny watching the leftists miss a huge part of this. The clock is now stopped on the Democrats lawfare. They were so desperate to try Trump before the election because the whole point of this sham is to interfere in the election.
Oops. Tick tock