Supreme Court Seems Open to Allowing Some Presidential Immunity, May Delay Trump Trial: Follow the Questions the Justices Asked

Epoch Times ^ | 04/25/2024 | Sam Dorman

[Gay State Conservative]

Did anyone have the courage to watch MSLSD last night? I cut the cord a year ago so I can’t. Watching them last night would have given us a good idea of how well...or badly...things went for DJT yesterday. If their heads were exploding you know that things went well for him.

[Gay State Conservative]

Sorry...Post #21 was meant for you!

[maro]

This is off topic, but why is “legal expense” inaccurate? Lawyers distinguish between fees and expenses. “Expenses” include stamps, photocopies . . . why not nuisance settlements?

[SMARTY]

Her statement...”...She further asked whether the president could order the military to assassinate someone...”, is spoken like a 100% pseudo-intellectual Liberal, who never gets beyond the patently emotional stage of thinking.

Also, she needs to brush up on the history of previous Presidencies. Possibly, she has never heard about the final moments of Diem and his brother.

[USS Alaska]

Conservative justices seemed poised to remand the case back to the district court in Washington with instructions on what constitutes official and private acts for further fact-finding proceedings. This would further delay President Trump’s trial in Washington and possibly other proceedings in Georgia, Florida, and New York, handing him a strategic win as he seeks to hold up cases until after the November presidential election.

Total win for team Trump.

There was no way that they thought they would get "TOTAL" immunity, but immunity from official acts will get 100% immunity.

The fight will be the razor thin line between personal and official. When Trump wins the election, he will have jack smith dismissed from the doj {and while I don't believe he will}, I'd love to see him use the doj, irs and fbi to prosecute the demonRATS.

I have no doubt that Trump will win, again, but the vote counters still scare the hell out of me.

[USS Alaska]

I am surprised Trump’s lawyer did not argue that if the president does not enjoy immunity from prosecution by a DA for his official acts as president, then the proper way to bring such a case was impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate.

If you listened to or read the testimony, you would know that he did argue that very point.

[bert]

The SCOTUS ruling on Trump instantly effects Biden.

The Biden presidency is in instant peril from the ruling

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

I have a question. If hate speech is a crime, and a Supreme Court Justice writes an opinion a lot of leftists disagree with, can that Justice be prosecuted for hate speech?

If they issue their opinion here carelessly, they will be subject to prosecution, too.

[FLT-bird]

OK. Fair enough. I finally saw an article that actually mentioned this. All the others glossed right over that critical point. I’ve heard one corporate media source after another claim he was arguing for immunity. No he’s not. He’s arguing for the constitutional remedy for any president which is impeachment and trial by the Senate.

[gloryblaze]

Prosecutors say the payment was intended to influence the election, thereby illegal - according to their legal theory.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks... nice to hear anyway.