EXCLUSIVE: Former AG John Ashcroft and Constitutional Coalition File Brief with US Supreme Court on Presidential Immunity

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com ^ | 4/09/2024 | JIM HOFT

[bitt]

The Constitutional Coalition and former Attorney General John Ashcroft filed an amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) in the United States Supreme Court in the case United States v. Trump. The appeal to the Supreme Court concerns the question of presidential immunity. More specifically, whether a subsequent president may criminally prosecute his (or her) predecessor, and current political rival, for official acts the previous president took while in office. This amicus brief was not filed on behalf of either party – Special Counsel Jack Smith (hired by Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute former President Trump) nor on behalf of former President Trump. Rather, this amicus brief was filed to defend the constitutional principle that a President of the United States, as the Nation’s chief executive, must have immunity from criminal prosecution for those official acts the President takes during the President’s term in office. Otherwise, the President’s fear of a subsequent political rival bringing a criminal prosecution after the President leaves office will impair the President’s ability to make those decisions necessary to protect our national interest and discharge the duties of the office of Chief Executive.

[bitt]

P

[linMcHlp]

bttt

[Jane Long]

...this amicus brief was filed to defend the constitutional principle that a President of the United States, as the Nation’s chief executive, must have immunity from criminal prosecution for those official acts the President takes during the President’s term in office. Otherwise, the President’s fear of a subsequent political rival bringing a criminal prosecution after the President leaves office will impair the President’s ability to make those decisions necessary to protect our national interest and discharge the duties of the office of Chief Executive.

---

Hallelujah.

Exactly what Pres Trump has been explaining, over and over.

[bone52]

If we want this crap to stop, we need AZ and TX to charge Obama with felony murder for fast and furious. You will see the media immediately switch to the side of presidential immunity.

[one guy in new jersey]

Seems as if it’s a structural argument, not textual. Not that it isn’t a strong argument. It’s subtle though, and will rely on strong-minded justices to give it life in a majority opinion.

[Jane Long]

Great point.

Where are these TX and AZ AGs, to do just this?

[alternatives?]

I think Meese’s filing regarding the special counsel not having authority to file charges is more convincing.

[kiryandil]

Otherwise, the President’s fear of a subsequent political rival bringing a criminal prosecution after the President leaves office will impair the President’s ability to make those decisions necessary to protect our national interest and discharge the duties of the office of Chief Executive.

Yes.

A subsequent president is criminally prosecuting his predecessor, and current political rival, for official acts the previous president took while in office.

Just like in any South American banana republic.

[Jane Long]

>> A subsequent president is criminally prosecuting his predecessor, and current political rival, for official acts the previous president took while in office. <<

Just like in any South American banana republic.

---

You have that exactly right.

[thinden]

Exactly!

Good on ashcroft

[4Runner]

That doesn’t go far enough. The Magic Negro wasn’t even qualified to run for office in the first place. He did so only by virtue of the DNC having falsified his Hawaii birth records and acting as a cabal to get him on the ballot. Remember the Golden Rule—Democrats don’t ever get prosecuted, convicted, and then jailed for their crimes. Only Republicans.

[willk]

I met John Ashcroft at a book signing. He seemed like a very nice man.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Asscroft is a real pain in the ass.

[Golden Eagle]

this amicus brief was filed to defend the constitutional principle that a President of the United States, as the Nation’s chief executive, must have immunity from criminal prosecution for those official acts the President takes during the President’s term in office.

OFFICIAL ACTS is the key phrase.

I expect the Supreme Court to tule that official acts as President MAY afford some immunity, but it depends on what the act in question was, and therefore must be judged on a case by case basis.

Then, with the regard to the Trump case, the question becomes, was Trump calling for the protest of the Electoral College vote an official act, or not. The Supreme Court may, or may not rule on that yet. They may send that question back to the lower court to consider for now.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I expect the Supreme Court to tule that official acts as President MAY afford some immunity, but it depends on what the act in question was, and therefore must be judged on a case by case basis.

I don't think they are that stupid.

Because that could require them to litigate every single act a president took while in office. Every single one. We would have to set up a full time court just to have all the hearings.

No one wants to open up that can of worms.

But sure, let's drag Jimma Car-ter into court and have him charged with offenses against the security of the US by shutting down Verona. For starters.

I have a real long list.

[Golden Eagle]

Because that could require them to litigate every single act a president took while in office. Every single one.

It would only take a couple of rulings for them to say those were official acts to shut down much of anything else being raised that appeared to be an official act by a President. The other options are worse - to say there is full immunity for anything a President does while in office (0% chance of happening) or that there is no immunity at all (what you are talking about - a deluge of cases prosecuting Presidents - would happen then).

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

It would only take a couple of rulings for them to say those were official acts to shut down much of anything else being raised that appeared to be an official act by a President.

No. It wouldn't.

That is what you are missing. There are people out there with limitless time to file suits and they would.

to say there is full immunity for anything a President does while in office

That is what the case is now.

I know Trump chaffs you like sand in your underwear but what you seem to want to happen is a very bad idea.

Unless you WANT the entire government to fall apart.

[Golden Eagle]

Ah, so it’s purely personal with you. I simply made a prediction which is in line with what most legal experts I’ve heard say they expect to happen, which makes perfect sense. If you think they’re going to, or even should, give full immunity to ANYTHING that ANY president does while in office, you’re going to be sadly disappointed, as literally no one is predicting that. Now go play with your Trump bobblehead.

[FLT-bird]

Not just a current president charging a former one.....any DA. We have about 29,000 district attorneys in this country. Some in very blue districts, but some in very red districts too. If the president is subject to criminal charges for his acts as president....even after leaving office, how much does anybody want to bet partisan DA’s in highly partisan districts will start coming up with wild legal theories to charge their political opponents in districts where those opponents have almost no hope of obtaining a fair trial?

The constitution is quite clear about the president. He can be impeached only.....ie he can be charged by the House and tried in the Senate. There is no role for the judiciary.