US supreme court to decide on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity

Trump did absolutely nothing [actually] illegal over the 2020 election or the Jan 6 episode.

 

I can't follow the thread of your reply to my post at all.....???

 

There is no need to "twist laws into pretzels".

Trump very clearly broke laws in order to defeat our democracy. This is not just about Jan 6.

Breaking financial and campaign laws is a separate case. What is your reason for holding Trump immune to prosecution for breaking such laws? Do you think there is no reason to have such laws?

 

That's what the case is about.

Trump says he's innocent. A MOUNTAIN of evidence says he is guilty. Various states have found him guilty. New states are noticing that there were crimes committed by the Trump cabal in their state. Various co-conspirators have been disbarred or otherwise found guilty and punished. Many have turned state's evidence.

There is no honest justification for ignoring these crimes without the clarity brought by prosecution and defense.

Plus, Trump declares these cases to be relevant, as he claims they will be repeated by him should he gain office.

 

There are endless links making it very plain that Humpty**** is claiming absolute immunity.

Rubbish. It was recognised because of Roe v Wade which was reliant on the Constitution. Yes, SCOTUS knocked Roe v Wade out and States are now legislating one way or the other.

I have no idea whether the US still applies the common law of England, but that is the basis for the existence of many rights even though there is no relevant Statute. In fact, in the Westminster System, a right can be argued to exist unless there is a Law specifically denying that right.

 

Irrelevant to what is actually before SCOTUS.

So when you said....

...you were wrong...going by your own words.

 

There is no common law right to any immunity of the kind Humpty**** is claiming. That went out with Kings.

 

*Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights eg.

 

Again, what is being argued before SCOTUS has nothing to do with "absolute immunity". Maybe instead of listening to a talking mouth you should tune into the arguments actually being made before SCOTUS. Here, I'll get you started...

 

It took the very first words spoken to SCOTUS by Sauer to prove you wrong. We already know POTUS enjoys civil immunity and those first words spoken were....."Mr Chief Justice and may it please the Court, without Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no Presidency as we know it."

He means 'absolute immunity.'

Last warning Mr Stang. One more line of smart arze condescension like "Here, I'll get you started....." and you'll be talking to the hand, not me.

 

Some folks might find this interesting.

Justice Thomas raised crucial question about legitimacy of special counsel's prosecution of Trump

Jack Smith was a private citizen when AG Garland appointed him as special counsel to investigate Trump in 2022

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised a question Thursday that goes to the heart of Special Counsel Jack Smith's charges against former President Donald Trump.

The high court was considering Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while president, but another issue is whether Smith and the Office of Special Counsel have the authority to bring charges at all.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ju...legitimacy-special-counsels-prosecution-trump

 

Try listening to more than a sentence. You post videos from crazy crackpot hyper-partisans from MSNBC, but you can't be bothered to review first hand documents?

From the very beginning, Trump's team has been focused on presidential acts. Here is District Court Judge Chutkan's initial order on his immunity motion.

She was responding to his motion that he was immune from official acts within the outer perimeter of his presidential responsibilities.

Her ruling was no immunity exists once they leave office.

Flash forward to the SCOTUS oral arguments:


Facts matter. Even the government's attorney was forced to admit there is some immunity beyond the President's term and Chutkan was wrong.

 

Let's see the transcript, circled, as you seem to like doing.

 

I'm not your clerk and it's not my responsibility to help prevent the spread of misinformation. Everyone is responsible for their own messaging. Unfortunately, if they primarily listen to hyper-partisan talking heads they'll often come away with false premises.

The correct information to prevent this misinformation could have been obtained by listening to the first minute of each side's oral arguments rather than a 17 minute video from a hyper-partisan media hack whose sole function is to mislead.





Immunity for constitutionally assigned duties, immunity if the Attorney General says he can do something, etc. Lots of ways to have immunity from criminal prosecution after term has ended, however, they claim Trump doesn't meet the hurdle for immunity. Thus, they are disagreeing with the lower court rulings and the precedent they set is a danger to our democracy. It means a president will not be able to properly govern if they fear being prosecuted by hyper-partisan political hacks and their political adversaries when they leave office. Their rulings mean Obama could be prosecuted for murder.

 

This is a big problem for Jack Smith. I'm not sure why Trump hasn't raised it yet. It's possible they're working through one appeal at a time. But this seems to be a valid reason to appeal.

 

According to several polls, 65% of voters want a Jan 6 trial/verdict prior to November 5th.

Do you?

 

SCOTUS put the kibosh on this. And based on what they are reportedly trying to achieve, a per action test (?), it's likely to spend the next decade in the appeals system and go to SCOTUS many times. It's a blatant perversion of applying the Rule of Law.

I still believe they will not rule this season because it would also apply to Biden and the SCOTUS majority does not want that spicy meatball rolling around.

Get everyone that want America to still not have a King out to vote, it the only way.

 

Do you think our system of Justice should be swayed by such?

 

Just so I’m clear here Rod…..legal assignment aside…

Are you ok with a POTUS trying to subvert the electoral colllege process and illegally change the EC vote in his own favor ?

 

Mind showing me people saying that they want a king?

 

Have you inspected the mirror closely or actually heard the oral arguements by the Trump team and the democrats on SCOTUS? If you did, you'd know.

 

That remains to be seen. He has definitely been charged with many felonies. But … innocent until proven guilty.

 

Primarily because Trump broke no laws, irrespective of it being clear to you that he did.

 

Hokay, Rod. I wasn’t convinced before, but now I am!

 

I personally do not want the trial before election. Having a trial has much more negative publicity than being under indictment.