Posted on 12/15/2023 11:47:15 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
The Supreme Court is weighing whether to fast-track arguments about presidential immunity relating to the indictment of former president Donald Trump over his actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. Special counsel Jack Smith has argued that Trump’s presidential immunity does not extend to the criminal justice system; Trump’s legal team, in a lower-court filing, has argued that it does.
And both sides are citing Richard M. Nixon.
Smith and Trump’s lawyers have both referred to Supreme Court rulings concerning the 37th president to bolster their arguments. But they’re citing two very different cases with very different outcomes.
The special counsel is pointing to the better-known of the two, United States v. Nixon, the 1974 decision requiring Nixon to comply with a criminal subpoena for his White House tapes in the Watergate scandal. In April 1974, special counsel Leon Jaworski, charged with investigating the 1972 Watergate break-in, subpoenaed Nixon’s tapes and other documents, believing they could contain evidence against the seven men already indicted.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, fedsurrection
Fixed it.
Jack Smith is just another loyal, brutal commissar in the corrupt Biden Department of Justice.
“If the President does it, it’s legal” - Richard Nixon
Interestingly, Nixon was also overthrown by the CIA/FBI.
Since both sides are arguing around a central, controversial figure, there’s trouble on the horizon.
The libs will stick together, as-expected. They always do.
Thomas and Alito should be on the right side of things.
The other 4? God help us.
I don’t have a good feeling about this.
If POTUS can be charged for criminal…..
Then the DOJ better charge Obama with the murder of a 16 year old US citizen, who had committed no crime.
That door has to swing both ways, and murder of a “child” is
Serious stuff.
As was his predecessor JFK.
Impeachment is the process for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. So how could a president have exposure beyond impeachment while president?
SCOTUS could slow walk a decision. They might not want to be seen as interfering with an election by ruling either way; or they could order a stay on the case until after the election or until 2029 as the case may be.
I don’t see that Trump should have immunity, but calling a speech where he said, “I know that many of you are going to the Capitol to protest peaceably” an insurrection is absolutely ludicrous.
An excellent book, and one I often recommend to people who have their heads completely up their @$$ about the Vietnam War. Not that it does much good.
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.