Posted on 12/11/2023 8:15:32 PM PST by bitt
US Supreme Court justices on Monday afternoon responded to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request to quickly rule on Trump’s immunity claims.
Jack Smith on Monday asked the US Supreme Court to weigh in on Trump’s immunity claims.
In September Trump was hit with 4 counts in Jack Smith’s January 6 case up in DC: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
Jack Smith is fighting to keep the March 4 trial date (one day before Super Tuesday) in his January 6 case against Trump in DC.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.
Jack Smith skipped over the appellate court and went straight to the US Supreme Court on Trump’s immunity claims.
“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office,” Smith wrote in the Monday filing.
“The only reason for this petition is to seek to guarantee a trial of Trump (and possible conviction) before the election,” Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley said.
In a brief order, the Supreme Court signaled it would grant Jack Smith’s request for an expedited consideration.
“The court’s brief order did not signal what it ultimately would do.” – the AP reported.
The high court ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond by December 20.
According to the AP, the Supreme Court is scheduled to meet next on January 5, 2024.
“Smith must think he has a solid case but this sounds like a Hail Mary to me.”
Smith never thinks he has a solid case, based on his previous record. His strategy is the same as any shyster lawyer, throw something up against the wall and see what sticks.
It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court justices will oblige and be his errand boys. I tend to think they will not.
Kavenaugh will vote as ordered. The feds, DOJ, and US Marshall’s all let him know they are not going to stop assassins. Only two will vote to protect the constitution in this case.
Not sure, but Jack Smith has a case starting in him
https://www.deepcapture.com/wp-content/uploads/Finalized_Complaint_COMPRESSED.pdf
According to the AP, the Supreme Court is scheduled to meet next on January 5, 2024?
Are y’all tired of winning yet?
Kavenaugh and ACB are both infiltrators. Very sad.
I am surprised there has been no research into individual Justices previous positions on election law and novel prosecutions.
That would be rather more significant than bizarre investigations into who works in a counselor’s office of a justice.
I suspect Trump’s team has not already framed arguments they would use for this hearing. It is not, btw, about the actions themselves. It is about immunity of the president from prosecution for actions while president that do not fall within any specific statute. These “crimes” are invented theories.
It will be interesting to see if that issue arises at all, or if the court rules narrowly that no president is immune to prosecution for crimes committed, without addressing whether or not the actions in question are crimes. That is likely the biggest danger. A narrow ruling of that sort. But so far the conservative majority of the court has not sought to avoid issues by ruling narrowly.
Roberts wanted a narrow ruling on abortion and the conservative majority would not sign onto that and issued a broad ruling. So in that context, the question of if he behavior was criminal vs just ruling on immunity may come into play.
Zero hedge is a good resource. Hope he’s right about this.
What an obfuscator that Smith is!
Is there a difference between immune and absolutely immune? --No, not in reality, but only as emotionally-driven, partisan propaganda.
Smith wants his question answered for the presumed "crimes committed" when there has yet to be a crime clearly pointed to in the law that and secondly, an enumeration of evidence that would show that PDJT has met all dispassionate, necessary elements to show he transgressed such law(s). Thus, SCOTUS' answer to Smith's question would not necessarily apply to his J6 indictment of PJDT as Smith has yet to prove before the court that PDJT has committed any crime.
As the embodiment of the Executive Branch in early January of 2021, PDJT was privy to many classified facts, observations and activities to which neither Smith nor any other person in the world was "read in." I don't think the Constitutional Framers intended that unelected prosecutors such as Smith should rightfully be allowed to play Monday morning quarterback for a US president's actions when, for example, PDJT has fresh intel from his DNI that there was foreign interference in the 2020 election. Other than dropping flashbangs on innocent, docile protesters, it's impossible for me to imagine that PDJT was committing crimes through peaceable rhetoric and a request that protesters disperse and go home.
Smith, the J6 Committee, the media and Dems have imputed that PDJT committed crimes without showing evidence that clearly demonstrates such. Almost all the evidence they claim to have had the J6 committee (Cheney?) illegally choose to destroy. The coordination of so many on the left, particularly as wielded by Pelosi over the Capitol Police and keeping the National Guard at bay for most of the day, is RICO-style coordination that was is of the same type as their evidenced and realized overthrow of the US Government in the November 3rd election. The Left's activities on J6, as clearly shown by the fact that there were so many deceptively dressed while on the FBI or three-letter agency payrolls, has come into ever-sharper focus as the true crime of an election coup.
While PDJT has been charged for J6 riots, there are many on the Left who should be charged, convicted and sentenced for what was seen on Capitol Hill that day.
How would Obiden fare if he pardoned Trump?
Could it be that Jack is losing so he wants an excuse to end the game but still have the narrative that Trump is guilty but couldn’t be prosecuted. The media and crowd can keep this story going through the elections.
My fear is that the Deep State will use any immunity decision to further destroy America while lapping up all of the graft for themselves. The larger and much more important issue is whether or not an “insurrection” occurred. However, as we have seen in the past few weeks, the Cabal has destroyed evidence that could have been used in the defense of President Trump and every single one of the political prisoners. THAT is maddening.
Smkith has three radical Justices in his corner Sotomayor, Kagan and the radical Katanji Brown Jackson. This has been prearranged.
The problem is that this motion may NOT have to be heard by the full banc of Justices, like a regular appeal becuase it is an interlocutory matter.
The TRump team has to make sure that the entire banc hears this motion, not just the three skanks including the leaker of the Roe v Wade distinction case.
Generally such an unusual interlocutory motion would be refused by the court.But there are three radicals who might sign on to it.I think it only takes 2 and if there are only three justices hearing it...could be bad.
the president is the executive branch and one can say in charge of the federal laws execution... impeachment is the consequence for breaking federal laws as president.
the moron meathead thinks the SCOTUS ruled against trump.
With Donald Trump, quick, quick, quick. Hunter and Joe...run out the clock.
The fix is in. They want Trump tried and convicted before the election
Yeah that sound like correct procedure.
If they don’t follow it, then the reason is that enough of the judges want to shut down the case.
Zero hedge is an investment service.
I find them out in la la land often.
Just my opinion.
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.