Posted on 12/11/2023 12:09:48 PM PST by thegagline
Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has asked the Supreme Court to step in and decide the issue of presidential immunity regarding former President Donald Trump’s federal election interference charges.
Smith is asking the court to immediately resolve the issue, to prevent any delay of the March 4 trial date.
“Respondent’s appeal of the ruling rejecting his immunity and related claims, however, suspends the trial of the charges against him, scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024,” the special counsel wrote in a filing Monday. “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”
In October, Trump’s legal team filed its first motion to dismiss the case, citing what Trump’s lawyers claim is his “absolute immunity” from prosecution for actions taken while serving in the nation’s highest office.
The judge overseeing the case, D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, rejected the motion.
Trump has appealed to the circuit court and asked for all proceedings to be stayed in the matter, pending appeal. Over the weekend, Smith’s team said the district court should deny the request to halt the proceedings.
Trump in August pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors,” using the Justice Department to conduct “sham election crime investigations,” trying to enlist the vice president to “alter the election results,” and promoting false claims of a stolen election as the Jan. 6 riot raged — all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.
(Excerpt) Read more at dnyuz.com ...
1) when the President’s actions are within the ambit of his office, he is absolutely immune from prosecution,
2) Trump was impeached by the House for incitement of insurrection but acquitted by the Senate. The special counsel cannot second guess the Senate.
The special counsel is attempting to have this matter heard before the Supreme Court in an expedited manner-bypassing the normal appellate process.
Jack Smith...the devil’s right hand man. proves it every day.
If Trump’s prosecution is not political, then what’s your hurry, Jack?
He wasn’t Constitutionally acquitted by the Senate because the SCOTUS Chief Justice did not preside over that farce.
Smith may have taken a head count, and knows how this is going to come out.
The first argument has been widely discussed. The second one is a bit of sleeper but makes some sense (arguably) under the wording of the Impeachment Clause.
Interesting that Jacobin Smith is pushing to get this before the USSC. I was not expecting that
If he wasn’t constitutionally aquitted, because the Chief Justice didn’t preside, was it even a legal trial in the first place?
The Constitution indicates that the Chief Justice will preside over impeachment trials, doesn’t it?
By that logic, the Senate effectively vacated the charges by holding a fake trial.
not sure I take your meaning... If he knew he would win in the ussc... would he push this now... I think YES.
if he knew he would lose somewhere on appeal and thus have things delayed until it was too late (trump is elected)... I think yes also.
If he knew he would be overturned at the USSC would he appeal to end it al now? NO he would not.
am I reading it wrong?
The SC will not expedite Thug Jack Smith’s request.
Under the Constitution, the Chief Justice only presides over impeachment trials of the President.
Roberts didn't bother showing up because Trump was no longer President by the time the trial began.
Good point. My initial thought was that Smith, as corrupt as he seems, may be attempting to make a graceful exit by having the Supreme Court find that Trump cannot be prosecuted.
Did no Supreme Court Justice preside or did the Chief Justice delegate it one of the other Justices?
I doubt the USSC will bypass the appellate process, but I dont have a recollection of if/how often they have bypassed appellate court in the past.
The Supreme Court has. With the Nixon tapes.
He wasn’t Constitutionally acquitted by the Senate because the SCOTUS Chief Justice did not preside over that farce.
“By that logic, the Senate effectively vacated the charges by holding a fake trial.”
The Senate holding a ‘fake’ trial doesn’t vacate criminal activity. The trial didn’t have a chief justice, because they were trying to remove someone from office that was already out of office. IE, it made no sense.
“Trump in August pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors,” using the Justice Department to conduct “sham election crime investigations,”
Yes, like the Russia collusion hoax which is treated today like it never happened by the RINOpublican party
It actually made a lot of sense. If Trump had been convicted in the Senate, they would have sought to disqualify him from holding Federal office again as the penalty.
“He wasn’t Constitutionally acquitted by the Senate because the SCOTUS Chief Justice did not preside over that farce.”
Constitutional or not, since he wasn’t convicted by the Senate, he was de facto acquitted.
Besides, if there was anything unconstitutional about the Senate trial, that argument can only work in Trump’s favor. Innocent until proven guilty.
“He wasn’t Constitutionally acquitted by the Senate because the SCOTUS Chief Justice did not preside over that farce.”
He was acquitted by the Senate and there was no requirement for the chief justice to be involved since Trump was no longer the president during that impeachment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.