Persecutor Jack Smith fears presidential immunity

American Thinker ^ | 29 Dec, 2023 | Mike McDaniel

[MtnClimber]

Persecutor Jack Smith is rightly worried. Even with a Trump Hanging Judge, and an all-but-certain DC hanging jury, things aren’t going his way. He’s moving Trump be denied the right to bring up anything about January 6 in a January 6 trial—none of this silly right-to-mount-a-defense nonsense--and that Trump generally be entirely muzzled about pretty much everything else. Hey, you can put innocent Americans in pre-trial detention for years, so why not? But his biggest problem is Presidential Immunity. Smith would have us believe Trump doesn’t have any of that ephemeral, never-before-imagined power. At American Greatness, Paul Ingrassia explains why Smith is wrong:

Showcasing their [the media’s] ignorance of both the Constitution and history, the mainstream media has framed [presidential immunity] as something of a novel innovation for President Trump’s lawyers, who are advocating for “broad immunity,” implying that no other presidential officeholder has ever made that claim. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Americans who remember their study of the Constitution from high school may recall the Constitution establishes a single POTUS, in whom all executive power is invested:

This construction is reinforced by the Federalist Papers, which stipulate that “energy in the executive” is “the leading character in the definition of good government” (Federalist 70). Further down in that same article, Hamilton asserts that “the executive power is more easily confined when it is one.” In other words, the Founding Fathers called for an “energetic”—that is, a strong and vigorous—president. An energetic executive might only exist with (what the media terms) “broad” immunity; otherwise, it would prove itself impotent in the face of a national crisis.

Sadly, that essential fact of the Constitution may not be taught in contemporary history classes, where deconstruction and reinvention of history seems to be the norm...

[bitt]

P

[Brian Griffin]

“In March 2021, two Capitol Police officers filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump. In February 2022, a federal judge ruled that the lawsuit could proceed.

“In January 2022, two Metropolitan and one Capitol Police officer filed separate suits against Trump, highlighting alleged wrongful conduct by Trump in inciting a riot during the January 6 riot.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump_as_president

[Political Junkie Too]

It's pretty clear what the Democrats are trying to do here.

Note that:

1. The Constitution grants immunity (except for Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace) to all members of Congress (Article I Section 6) for all acts occurring while in Congress, and traveling to and from Congress.

   Only Congress can remove a fellow member of Congress from their office.

2. The Constitution grants de facto immunity to the Supreme Court and all inferior courts (shall hold their Offices during good Behavior) unless impeached and convicted by Congress.

   Once, Congress tried to eliminate an inferior court (as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish) but the judges of that court filed suit, claiming that eliminating their court violated the "Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office" clause. [someone else will have to find the citation for me]

3. But we are to believe that the President has no such immunity at all? Congress can impeach and convict the President; the Supreme Court can refuse to hear the appeals of the President? The President stands alone unprotected by the Constitution?

So, everyone in federal government has immunity except for President Trump?

-PJ

[grumpygresh]

Time to revoke prosecutorial and judicial immunity.
What use is the 14th amendment if it’s not applied equally?

[minnesota_bound]

The rinos working with the democrats.

Bushies and NeverTrump Team up With Special Counsel Jack Smith to Destroy President Trump
https://revolver.news/2023/12/bushies-nevertrump-team-up-with-jack-smith-to-destroy-president-trump/

[thesligoduffyflynns]

Lets make things short & sweet on Jack.

Full name John Lumen Smith / see wiki for bio

Created a massive extortion ring to bring down

Kosovos new pres and also had set sights on Montenegro

in taking down their form of govt by extortion.

You wont see this in the news but the pdf is out there

thru links at Americsn Thinker.

Smith isnt even qualified to be a Spec Prosecutor

Merrick Garland told him ti take Pres Trump down

byt Garland is total aa numbnutz- Garland forgot that

only Congress can approve him for this Pres Trump trial

Whistleblower John Moynihan x FBI reported this.

[MtnClimber]

From what I have heard, the Florida documents were primarily related to the Russia Collusion hoax. There was a high-level CIA document that was found to be missing that seemed to have people in a panic, but it was not found in the raid. These documents were all classified to protect the guilty parties, not to protect national security. There were no documents with the nuclear launch codes. That reporting was another hoax. Trump had the authority to declare all of these documents declassified while he was president and he had authority to have classified documents under the Presidential Records Act (44 U.S. Code Chapter 22). Trump had worked to implement proper storage security, had security inspections and even implemented recommended upgrades.

My belief is that they thought Trump had the missing CIA document that they are panicked about (and he still may). I also think that the upper level FBI people knew Trump was planning to sue them and others for the Russia hoax and they used the SWAT raid to take his evidence.

[MtnClimber]

Time to revoke prosecutorial and judicial immunity.

You don't know how much I agree with that!

[ByteMercenary]

Smith continues his lawless ways because there are no consequences to his actions when he is wrong. Should a frivolous legal action be deemed so by a judge, make the prosecution pay for any and all financial obligations that were imposed upon a defendant. For example, if a guy had to sell his house to pay legal fees and then won the case, the prosecution is on the hook for the legal fees and for replacing the home. Where this becomes interesting is this: what if a member of the defendants family dies because of the stress induced by the legal action. Who on the losing prosecution is gonna volunteer to do a rope dance? Entertaining thought ...

Of course a financial settlement would probably be put in place, but the amount has to hurt the prosecution.

[Texas Fossil]

Presidential Immunity does not protect against TREASON.

O’Biden is guilty of Treason by taking bribes in return for aiding foreign powers to destroy the USA and our economic system.

The End.

[Rlsau1]

“ Jack Smith is used to losing unanimously in the Supreme Court. Somehow he does not seem embarrassed about the prospect of another time.”

Jack is thinking about that payday down the road. One can only wonder what he’s been promised to stage this sham.

[Political Junkie Too]

Of course not. It doesn't protect against impeachable offenses.

-PJ

[William Tell]

It will soon become common practice for a President to issue himself and others blanket pardons.