Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Holder worried Supreme Court will come to ‘dangerous’ conclusion on Trump immunity
The Hill ^ | 06/19/2024 | Tara Suter

Posted on 06/19/2024 4:39:55 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday he is concerned that the Supreme Court will come to a “dangerous” conclusion on former President Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, partly because it has taken time for the justices to reveal their decision.

Trump has made the immunity claim on charges related to the federal cases he faces on storing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida and related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: ericholder; holder; immunity; puppetmasterbarack; supremecourt; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last
Poor you. Dirt bag.🙄
1 posted on 06/19/2024 4:39:55 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Well, if it isn’t Mr. In Contempt of Congress himself.


2 posted on 06/19/2024 4:41:29 PM PDT by mass55th (“Courage is being scared to death, but saddling up anyway.” ― John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

On all fronts, the Left has been taking it to the Court as of late. But I’m not sure it matters to the voting public at large.


3 posted on 06/19/2024 4:43:04 PM PDT by goodolemr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

The first thing the Trump DOJ should do is announce loudly and publicly that they would have no objection to Mexico extraditing Holder to face charges for running guns into Mexico.

L


4 posted on 06/19/2024 4:44:46 PM PDT by Lurker ( Peaceful coexistence with the Left is not possible. Stop pretending that it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Holder worried ...

you should be eric.

being OG and all.


5 posted on 06/19/2024 4:45:37 PM PDT by cuz1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Eric Holder avoided prison because of non-existent DoJ immunity.

But he doesn’t believe in Presidential immunity.

What a scumbag.


6 posted on 06/19/2024 4:46:29 PM PDT by cockroach_magoo (No one is above the law, but some are more above the law than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodolemr

“On all fronts, the Left has been taking it to the Court as of late.”

FDR?

Intimidation worked for me.


7 posted on 06/19/2024 4:46:32 PM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

if ANYONE deserves to go to jail its that piece of sh*t


8 posted on 06/19/2024 4:47:42 PM PDT by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mass55th

Lock him up for at least 4 mo.


9 posted on 06/19/2024 4:48:12 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

“Supreme Court will come to a “dangerous” conclusion on former President Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, partly because it has taken time for the justices to reveal their decision”

I wouldn’t read too much into the timeframe of the decision as being a predictor of the outcome.


10 posted on 06/19/2024 4:49:42 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

You better hope they rule for Trump. Just about every president has some incidents in their administration that could be prosecuted.


11 posted on 06/19/2024 4:49:44 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

“During David Frost’s series of interviews with Richard Nixon, Nixon (in)famously said

‘when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal, by definition.’”

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/78917/was-nixons-when-the-president-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal-tech

reader comment:

The context, clearly indicated in your quote, is the Huston Plan, which involved mass surveillance of US citizens, burglary, and even potentially internment camps for “radicals.” It was an assertion that any crime could be committed if it was claimed to be in the national interest (preventing people from making the nation less “peaceful” and “orderly”).

Nixon: “Well, what I, at root I had in mind I think was perhaps much better stated by Lincoln during the War between the States. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, “Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation.”

link given above:
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/78917/was-nixons-when-the-president-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal-tech


12 posted on 06/19/2024 4:51:02 PM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

President Nixon could have been convicted.

Presidents don’t have more immunity than their subordinates such as Eric Holder or Merrick Garland.

Presidents do enjoy a rebuttable presumption that their actions were legal.


13 posted on 06/19/2024 4:52:34 PM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Deport Mr. Fast and Furious to Mexico for allowing guns into Mexico which have been used in crimes. No immunity for him either.


14 posted on 06/19/2024 4:53:11 PM PDT by BipolarBob (I was drowning in self pity until I bathed in the refreshing Lake of Respect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

What’s “dangerous” to Holder is good for Americans.


15 posted on 06/19/2024 4:54:32 PM PDT by Allegra (Toss a zeeper in the Dnieper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Oh yes, you got a fine sister
She warmed my blood from cold
She warmed my blood to boiling hot
To keep you from the gallows pole, pole, pole, pole, yeah, yeah
Your brother brought me silver, and your sister warmed my soul
But now I laugh and pull so hard, see you swinging on the gallows pole, yeah


16 posted on 06/19/2024 4:55:06 PM PDT by WeaslesRippedMyFlesh (Don't sweat the small stuff (like tweets morons))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware

Yep. I almost hope they don’t.


17 posted on 06/19/2024 4:59:22 PM PDT by cowboyusa (YESHUA IS KING AMERICA, AND HE WILL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE HIM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

I am thinking the SC will characterize it as a riot, not the insurrection that the Democrats crafted as a narrative for political purposes and to enable him to be stripped of immunity so they could lawfare him. As a riot that he “failed” to contain, immunity applies because whatever actions he took or did not take as part of his presidential duties are subject to immunity from prosecution. If a DC jury gets ahold of this case, they will convict regardless of the evidence. They are worse than Manhattan juries. So the SC may be calculating, we will kill the whole damned thing here so it never gets to the stage of feeding it to a DC jury


18 posted on 06/19/2024 5:00:34 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27
Notice how Article 3 says that the Justices serve "during good behavior," and Article I says that Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

It is only the President who has no protection for their behavior in the elected office?

Is "good behavior" for the Justices limited only to when they are on the bench hearing oral arguments or when they release their rulings?

Is "going to and returning from" Congress an official act of Congress?

So why are enemies of President Trump arguing that the President has no immunities for himself, or that they are so limited in scope to be narrower than even members of Congress and the Supreme Court enjoy?

-PJ

19 posted on 06/19/2024 5:00:54 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin
Presidents do enjoy a rebuttable presumption that their actions were legal.

If I was in charge of a gambling website trying to calculate the probability of the success of Trump's immunity appeal, that statement doesn't help me.

20 posted on 06/19/2024 5:01:06 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Re-imagine the media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson