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.
Seems to me Shits is trying to do an end-around on the defense team, if he has not brought the merits of the case into the question put before SCOTUS, I’m not certain he wouldn’t win.
Yes. A President can prepardon for any federal crime already committed. They cannot pardon for a crime not yet committed.
Wrong. Just whether he has immunity. Not convinction. If he doesn’t, smith wants to get this to trial.
This is what we can expect. Of course, Biden is mentally incompetent, so maybe the SC will look at it. (Fingers crossed.)
This ruling could be used to protect all the previous Jackal Presidents also.
The SCOTUS should refuse to rule on it.
Right?
I’m not a lawyer.
Maybe. maybe not. The Court has taken direct appeals before.
Where’s the aviator sunglasses?!
No self respecting Turd World Caudillo goes outdoors without them
true but there were urgent issues at stake. what is the urgency here for a past crime?
That link you posted is an interesting read.
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.
****************
Exactly.
I skim read the memorandum by *Randolph D Moss and came away unimpressed. Most of the legal arguments start with the Nixon/Agnew takedown during the early 1970’s and extend to the present day. Then they go from 1973 back to quoting James Madison from the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention.
The time period I’m most interested in, is 1790-1973.
Where is all the case law precedent in this period?
*Moss is a judge appointed by Obama and was an assistant attorney general during the Clinton Presidency.
IMHO you are correct. I fear that Smith is eager to have the SC rule on this question, precisely because Trump’s lawyers’ formulation is overbroad and mistargeted.
The appropriate issue is what you suggest: Do the actions Trump is charged with constitute crimes for a sitting President of the US? Since they are all matters of politics and free speech, absolutely not.
I presume that SCOTUS can choose to reframe the question to something useful, but who knows if they will.
A judge in a some state already judged that Trump is guilty of participating in an insurrection. But President Trump was being accused under the 14th amendment in which it says ‘officers of the United States’ and since he wasn’t sure if the President was ‘an officer of the United States’, the judged deferred it to a higher court.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that a President or an elected official is not an ‘officer of the United States’, only those that are hired or appointed (not elected).
That blows out of the water all the insurrection cases as the President can not then be charged under the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment.
On top of that Trump claims that any action he took was to safeguard the correctness of the election which he claims was corrupt, in which case he was acting within his legal authority as President and thus he is immune. I think this is what Jack Smith is trying to determine.
Yep! 👍
Their call to make. Apparently they are going to consider it.
If they are the fix is in.
“…at the heart of our democracy”
Well, there’s your first problem.
Incompetence isn’t a crime.
Here’s a very interesting video about Jack Smith, according to Patrick Byrne
https://rumble.com/v40n46l-live-breaking-7pm-est-patrick-byrne-reveals-alleged-trump-prosecutor-jack-s.html
Define “republic” for this purpose.
The surface winds here are calm.
While the winds aloft are howling.
Bookmark. Jack SMith’s INTERNATIONAL affairs
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.