Posted on 04/25/2024 10:59:41 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments on Trump’s presidential immunity claim in Jack Smith’s January 6 case in DC.
The case made its way to the Supreme Court after the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Trump was not immune from prosecution.
Trump’s lawyers previously argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.
“In 234 years of American history, no president ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in last month’s filing, according to CBS News. “To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide.”
John Sauer, a Missouri-based attorney for Trump, gave an opening statement on Thursday and argued that Jack Smith’s indictment uses vague statutes to criminalize “core authority” of the presidency.
As expected, the liberal justices, similar to the appellate court judges, floated absurd hypotheticals.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked John Sauer, “How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup? Is that immune? Is it an official act?”
from prosecution if he ordered the military to assassinate his political rival.
“…If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts that for which he can get immunity?” Sotomayor asked John Sauer.
Sauer replied, “It would depend on the hypothetical. What we can see that could well be an official act.”
Sotomayor defended Obama’s drone strikes on civilians while attacking Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Somebody told me once that when a liberal objects to what a conservative might do, they are themselves presently doing it.
Leftists rely on juvenile arguments. They just throw idiocy at an issue, muddy the water, and then think they’re ‘intellectual’. No, you’re a child making childish arguments.
Presidential immunity is a thing, but it doesn’t make a president above the law, so of course democrats will defend it, just as Trump is doing now.
The question is is it an official presidential act.
Interesting thing about those “WMDS’’.
I suppose it was just a coincidence that Old Ferret Face Bashar al-Assad happened to use WMDS against his own people not long after Saddam was gone.
And it’s no coincidence that the B’aath Party just happened to be the only political party, then in Iraq as it is now and always has been in Syria.
I thought Sotomayor was the stupidest person to sit on the court in my lifetime. Jackson blows her out of the water when it comes to stupidity.
I nearly fell out of my seat when I heard that. I wanted a Justice to ask him if that meant that a President who ignored immigration laws and let 10 million foreigners illegally enter the United States can be prosecuted after he leaves office?
-PJ
Obamas drones killed Americans. It is unreal he got away with that.
of course he got away with it, he’s the dems messiah
Apparently these liberal “justices” don’t understand the Constitution spells out the way such crimes of a President are to be handled — its called impeachment and the follow-on trial in the senate. The founders were so much more intelligent than our current day Justices/judges/lawyers.
Kagan says it was totally OK for Obama to do that because he had good intentions - he was protecting us from terrorists (never mind whether they actually were terrorists, or were just inconvenient to Obama personally...).
But Trump protecting us from fraudulent elections - a well-recognized goal for America’s enemies - is just for his own personal gain.
Frustrating as heck to listen to her not give anybody else a chance to talk.
What about Obama’s Fast and Furious Gun Running?
Oops I meant Sotomayor.
“...SCOTUS ........ would prefer to kick the can.”
Traitor Roberts MO.
Dreeben said that the first layer of structural protection is the expectation that the President will faithfully execute the laws of the land.
I nearly fell out of my seat when I heard that. I wanted a Justice to ask him if that meant that a President who ignored immigration laws and let 10 million foreigners illegally enter the United States can be prosecuted after he leaves office?
Bingo. To me they didn’t want to raise anything re potential lawsuits in that regard that would make their way to them.
That said just ask the hypothetical which Dreeben used continually re that subject.
e,g, if a president doesn’t protect the citizens of the US from things like rape, theft, taking over property, murder shouldn’t they be prosecuted.
Have they somehow confused Trump with Hillary and Bill Clinton?
Yeah, me too
That was a real jaw dropper
The DOJ legal beagles were twisting themselves in to pretzels to not go down paths that would lead to Biden prosecution down the road, but they were not successful
I respectfully disagree. If Trump is going to argue that the president is “absolutely immune” from prosecution for his “official acts,” which is exactly what he is claiming, then just how far that goes is a legitimate line of questioning.
If the president does have that immunity, then assassinating a political opponent who poses a “clear and present danger to the republic” is arguably within a president’s official responsibilities to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If the Supreme Court agrees, then given the election interference the Biden administration is already engaging in, Biden is likely to decide that Trump could be killed and Biden could walk away with impunity.
Never give to your political friends power that could be used against you when you are out of power.
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.