Posted on 12/11/2023 12:42:08 PM PST by Kevin in California
Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to immediately step in to decide whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for his actions seeking to overturn the 2020 election.
"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 court filing.
Smith said it was "of imperative public importance" that the high court decide the question so that Trump's trial, currently scheduled for March, can move forward as quickly as possible.
The Supreme Court decides which cases it hears, so it is not required to take up the case.
NBC News has reached out to Trump's attorneys for comment on the special counsel's filing.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the election interference case, denied Trump's motion to dismiss his indictment on presidential immunity and constitutional grounds, prompting Trump to appeal and ask for the case to be put on hold.
Sounds like: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
As the chief law enforcement officer for the USA, he is required to investigate potential illegal activities at the Federal level. What is so hard to understand about that?
Jack Smith is, in no way, the “chief law enforcement officer for the USA.”
What other untruths are in that head of yours?
Unfortunately, they won’t. They have backstabbed Trump so many times I expect nothing less. The antifa demonic abortion gang scared the hell out of them. They sent a message to the SCJ when they were protesting in front of their homes and threatening their families…nothing was done by the federal government to protect them. Many times I have seen courage escape even the most conservative and brave people holding high offices. Trump is screwed…face it! No matter what the outcome I will be voting for him even if he’s behind bars. No other Republican nominee will do. I hear the Chinese have infiltrated our power grids…mark my words all the voting machines will fail on election night, compliments of the communist pieces of shit and Biden! What do you think that meeting in San Francisco was all about? Think real good.
Smith may be hoping SCOTUS saying Trump can be prosecuted for some things can be wordplay that the Dim media and Dim prosecutors and Dim state attorney generals can use to say Trump can be persecuted for anything.
(Yes, I intentionally swapped around the words "prosecution" and "persecution" because they are synonymous when talking about how the Dims abuse their power.)
They won’t hear it.
And, should they take this up, AND rule in Trump’s favor, the cries of PACK THE COURT TO STOP FASCISM! will be deafening.
Great Photoshop job.
Re: 16 - I think it’s a close call on acquittal in an Impeachment trial precludes indictment and trial on criminal charges. Depends on the specific charges.
Some more info here:
https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download
Liberals DAILY spew worse and more inflammatory language than THEY wrongly accused Trump of saying
This will never happen. Tagline.
One flaw in the whole discussion on the subject of “acquittal immunity” is that so much of it takes places in the context of a modern political and legal landscape that didn’t exist when the Constitution was written. Specifically, it should be pointed out that any question about the legal exposure to criminal prosecution for an acquitted President in the 1790s would mainly focus on prosecution in a state court, not Federal court. That’s because there were hardly any Federal crimes listed in the U.S. criminal code at the time. The U.S. Department of Justice didn’t even exist until 1870, and the U.S. Attorney General and the various District Attorneys worked mainly in civil matters under the Treasury Department before that.
The Jackal
Maybe he’s looking for a way to let go of this tar baby.
The Supreme Court decides which cases it hears, so it is not required to take up the case.
Sounds like they gave him the make your move sucker we’ll decide after you charge him.
Hopefully they’ll tell him the chalk line is where you stand as we slam the door on your stinger.
Be framed the wisdom in a way he can’t lose. Is the president immune from any prosecution for any crimes in Office, even after he leaves Office
No court will create an immunity that broad.
But is he immune for challenging an election and asking Congress to investigate, or to select alternate electors?
And in the circumstances of this particular case.
For that he is likely immune, there might not even be a crime.
As they say in My Cousin Vinny: “It’s a bull_hit question!”
Not political at all, but we NEED THIS DATE!
wisdom = question
What provision of the Constitution or statute is relevant to this dispute? I have yet to see any analysis of this in conservative media.
And they could end the nightmare of hundreds of thousands of cheat-by-mail-in ballots that were never checked for signature verification as was shown in the video in Kari Lake's election suit. But lower court hack judges keep finding in favor of Evil, and by the time it makes it through the regular channels to SCOTUS, the 2024 election will be behind us. Ditto for all the J6 prisoner appeals. SHAMEFUL!
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.