Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Special counsel asks Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s immunity in Jan. 6 case
DNYUZ ^ | 12/11/2023 | Staff

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 20210106; 202308; 20230i; 202310; 202403; 20240304; chutkan; harassment; immunity; impeachment; j6; jacksmith; lawfare; persecution; president; prosecution; scotus; tanyachutkan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
There are two arguments being made by Trump’s attorneys:

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.

1 posted on 12/11/2023 12:09:48 PM PST by thegagline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thegagline

Jack Smith...the devil’s right hand man. proves it every day.


2 posted on 12/11/2023 12:12:39 PM PST by Qwapisking ("IF the Second goes first the First goes second" L.Star )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thegagline

If Trump’s prosecution is not political, then what’s your hurry, Jack?


3 posted on 12/11/2023 12:14:09 PM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /Sarc tag really necessary? Pray for President Biden: Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thegagline

He wasn’t Constitutionally acquitted by the Senate because the SCOTUS Chief Justice did not preside over that farce.


4 posted on 12/11/2023 12:15:42 PM PST by where's_the_Outrage? (Drain the Swamp. Build the Wall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thegagline

Smith may have taken a head count, and knows how this is going to come out.


5 posted on 12/11/2023 12:19:06 PM PST by Fido969 (45 is Superman! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thegagline

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


6 posted on 12/11/2023 12:20:36 PM PST by Stingray51 ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

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?


7 posted on 12/11/2023 12:20:58 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?
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.

8 posted on 12/11/2023 12:21:14 PM PST by Alberta's Child (If something in government doesn’t make sense, you can be sure it makes dollars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

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?


9 posted on 12/11/2023 12:24:19 PM PST by MIA_eccl1212 (utilize leverage at every opportunity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thegagline

The SC will not expedite Thug Jack Smith’s request.


10 posted on 12/11/2023 12:24:30 PM PST by tennmountainman (FUJB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
The Constitution indicates that the Chief Justice will preside over impeachment trials, doesn’t it?

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.

11 posted on 12/11/2023 12:24:31 PM PST by Alberta's Child (If something in government doesn’t make sense, you can be sure it makes dollars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
If Trump's prosecution is not political, then what's your hurry, Jack?

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.

12 posted on 12/11/2023 12:25:59 PM PST by thegagline (Sic semper tyrannis! Goldwater in 2024)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

Did no Supreme Court Justice preside or did the Chief Justice delegate it one of the other Justices?


13 posted on 12/11/2023 12:26:08 PM PST by libertylover (Our biggest problem, by far, is that almost all of big media is AGENDA-DRIVEN, not-truth driven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thegagline

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.


14 posted on 12/11/2023 12:26:59 PM PST by Magnum44 (...against all enemies, foreign and domestic... )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44

The Supreme Court has. With the Nixon tapes.


15 posted on 12/11/2023 12:30:38 PM PST by Trump20162020
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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.


16 posted on 12/11/2023 12:32:00 PM PST by Pete Dovgan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thegagline

“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


17 posted on 12/11/2023 12:32:41 PM PST by GrandJediMasterYoda (As long as Hillary Clinton remains free, the USA will never have equal justice under the law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pete Dovgan
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.

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.

18 posted on 12/11/2023 12:35:02 PM PST by Alberta's Child (If something in government doesn’t make sense, you can be sure it makes dollars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

“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.


19 posted on 12/11/2023 12:35:06 PM PST by enumerated (81 million votes my ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

“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.


20 posted on 12/11/2023 12:35:14 PM PST by bosco24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson