Posted on 02/28/2024 2:16:59 PM PST by CaptainK
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to rule on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal charges in his federal election interference case.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
This will be debated.
You sound knowledgeable, perhaps.
I would think the Immunity claim makes sense, as the first defense, to me, though. Defense would start with a broad claim of immunity and resort to the particulars that require more evidence, only if lost.
If there is no direct path in appealing the NY State decision, then this is a failure of justice, as Trump will never see that money again, given the corrupt state of NY.
This is such an enormous case with a galaxy of implications that would possibly incriminate-—or open to charges, everyone from W for “war crimes” to Obama for drone bombing an American citizen he deemed a “terrorist.” On the flip side, does any president have a get out of jail free card if, 10 years after leaving office, they kill their wife? I dunno where all this goes, but the Supes will have to get it right because as I say the implications here are huge.
QUESTION: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
Guaranteed Roberts will rule for Trump. Bookmark this.
We will see what the Supremes say.
…SCOTUS will hear Trump’s immunity claim - but it’s absurd and they won’t buy it….
A SCOTUS ruling would apply to ALL ex-presidents. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”. PERJURY. “The border is secure”. PERJURY.
They know if they say he doesn’t have immunity - every president will be sued. Even presidents that are dead.. their estates will be sued. It would be chaos.
I think that Trump will get NY to accept a much reduced bond for the appeal via the Supreme Court
It needs to be 9-0
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
So the justices better THINK LONG AND HARD.
“If Trump is liable for “criminal acts” over the Jan 6 nothing burger, then Obama and Holder would certainly be liable for the fast and furious boondoggle.”
And Clinton over the slaughter of innocent children at Waco.
Quite right, they could rule one way or the other
It is what it is, amen
If a president isn’t immune from his official actions, why would any justice be immune from his rulings ? Especially with the rogue judges we have today.
I have here a posthumous murder indictments for Justices Blackmun, Burger, Stewart, Brennan, Douglas, Marshall, and Powell in the Roe v Wade decision.
Rehnquist and White are exonerated.
“On the flip side, does any president have a get out of jail free card if, 10 years after leaving office, they kill their wife?”
But killing his wife is not part of his official duties.
In Jilly’s case, you could make the argument.
I doubt that a majority of the Court will extend absolue immunity in Trump's case, but it is not an absurd claim.
It is well established that Presidents have absolute immunity for civil claims arising out of their actions in office and at least qualified immunity for criminal claims. The extent of that qualified immunity for criminal claims has never been directly decided by the Court.
And Biden and Mayorkas, along with other administration officials, would be responsible for the theft, damage and loss of life caused by illegals due to their maladministration and misadministration.
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.