Supreme Court Takes Trump's Immunity Claims

[DeluxAuto]

This may be the way Jack Smith has set it up to get his own butt off the hook. There are rules against using the justice system to persecute someone.

Prosecution isn't the same as persecution, Derpy.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Well, in actuality Trump did exactly what you erroneously claim he didn’t, your claim being laughable.

But, it will be no surprise if the Supreme Court delays the immunity question until after the election before affirming the lower court’s ruling.

Jack Smith delayed it by waiting so long to bring his case forward. Now he’s trying to fast track it because he wants a trial during the campaign, before the election. His problem now isn’t just his own foot dragging and the decision by SCOTUS, it’s Section 9-27.260 of the Justice Department’s Justice Manual that says prosecutors “may never make a decision regarding . . . prosecution or select the timing [thereof] . . . for the purpose or affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

 

[ll74]

The great part in all of this is that if Trump doesn't have immunity after leaving office, every head of state in the world is subject to the same lack of immunity after leaving office.

Which is not the traditional and historic understanding of what immunity means.

SCOTUS is specifically answering the question of what immunities the President would have or would not have after leaving office. There is no chance that they will agree with either full immunity or no immunity.

 

[HisArpy]

SCOTUS is specifically answering the question of what immunities the President would have or would not have after leaving office. There is no chance that they will agree with either full immunity or no immunity.

So you say.

In the meantime, can I borrow your crystal ball?

 

[ll74]

So you say.

In the meantime, can I borrow your crystal ball?

The question they specifically said they will answer is

“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,”

If they were specifically going to give a flat yes or no answer, they wouldn't have added "to what extent"

And then the President would need to prove that he acted in an official capacity when laws were broken in order to meet any decision from SCOTUS.

 

[ll74]

SCOTUS is specifically answering the question of what immunities the President would have or would not have after leaving office. There is no chance that they will agree with either full immunity or no immunity.

Let me rephrase this - my opinion is that there is no chance. And that is due to my belief that one branch would give any other branch a complete pass from that type of checks on power.

 

[jomar]

Jack Smith delayed it by waiting so long to bring his case forward. Now he’s trying to fast track it because he wants a trial during the campaign, before the election. His problem now isn’t just his own foot dragging and the decision by SCOTUS, it’s Section 9-27.260 of the Justice Department’s Justice Manual that says prosecutors “may never make a decision regarding . . . prosecution or select the timing [thereof] . . . for the purpose or affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

And Merrick Garland

 

[ByteMe13]

Interesting observation noted by the WSJ. There were no dissents on the order and it directed the D.C. Circuit to delay returning the case to the trial court until the Supreme Court rules.

This is looking more and more like a 2025 trial. The DOJ has gotta be kicking itself for dragging its feet before bringing its case forward.

My guess is that a ruling won’t come until after the election. If Trump wins, the Court will just reaffirm the ruling by the appeals court. No need to get involved. A new AG will just dismiss all charges. If Trump loses, the Court will rule that Trump, and only Trump, has absolute immunity. Bush v Gore part 2

 

[ll74]

My guess is that a ruling won’t come until after the election. If Trump wins, the Court will just reaffirm the ruling by the appeals court. No need to get involved. A new AG will just dismiss all charges. If Trump loses, the Court will rule that Trump, and only Trump, has absolute immunity. Bush v Gore part 2

It will be decided in April and returned to the courts. My guess is September timeframe at the earliest.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It will be decided in April and returned to the courts. My guess is September timeframe at the earliest.

Usually the court issues decisions in June, before the last day of the term in late June or early July. My guess is it come sooner but probably not later than that.

 

[Bray123]

There are rules against using the justice system to persecute someone.

Do you mean like trying to get to President Biden by investigating what his son may have said whilst working for a private company in another country?

 

[Rightguide]

If Biden killed someone and resigned, would he be immune.?

Harry Truman wasn't tried in retirement for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan and elsewhere.

 

[ll74]

Harry Truman wasn't tried in retirement for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan and elsewhere.

So he would be immune or he wouldn't be immune?

Did Truman kill an American on national TV?


If Biden killed McConnell during the state Of the union, would he be immune?

 

[TastySuckToy]

Harry Truman wasn't tried in retirement for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan and elsewhere.

One important note is what the President does is also evaluated on the basis of whether it's done within the purview of the duties of office. The President just up and personally shooting someone is not within the confines of what is understood as Presidential duties.

Ordering a drone strike that kills innocent people is more up for debate, depending on the justification on why that action was taken.

 

[ll74]

One important note is what the President does is also evaluated on the basis of whether it's done within the purview of the duties of office. The President just up and personally shooting someone is not within the confines of what is understood as Presidential duties.

That is precisely what the courts are answering at SCOTUS now.

Ordering a drone strike that kills innocent people is more up for debate, depending on the justification on why that action was taken.

Some people think the candidate calling up Georgia Secretary of State and asking him to find 11k votes is within his duties as President.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Harry Truman wasn't tried in retirement for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan and elsewhere.

War was formally declared against the Axis powers. Ask your Daddy.
Unlike your days shootin' gooks in the 'Nam or Dubya's splendid little desert adventure.

 

[jomar]

Harry Truman wasn't tried in retirement for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan and elsewhere.

Excellent false equivalency! Well done!

 

[icanhelp1]

That is precisely what the courts are answering at SCOTUS now.


Some people think the candidate calling up Georgia Secretary of State and asking him to find 11k votes is within his duties as President.

If a president believes he/she has evidence that the elections were corrupted somehow it could be viewed as a reasonable to take actions that protect our system.

 

[TastySuckToy]

If a president believes he/she has evidence that the elections were corrupted somehow it could be viewed as a reasonable to take actions that protect our system.

It would actually be the duty of the President to investigate election issues if he believed he had evidence for them.

 

[ll74]

If a president believes he/she has evidence that the elections were corrupted somehow it could be viewed as a reasonable to take actions that protect our system.

As I said... There are people who believe that the candidate for President was acting as President by specifically seeking out enough votes for him to win the election.

Thanks for confirming.

 

[DeluxAuto]

BTW, my apologies for duplicating your thread.

You shouldn't be upset. You'd do the same thing if you were in Trump's shoes. The SCOTUS is taking up Trump's claim of immunity because the issue is central to his case. Be advised as well that Jack Smith himself urged the Court to take up the issue forthwith and they are doing so. this case is going to fail because Jack Smith is a failure. He is a political headhunter who has fucked up more than one big case.

Do you really want to give President Biden immunity?

That's not what he asked.

What are the odds we get a straight answer?

 

[PaxNurgle]

It would actually be the duty of the President to investigate election issues if he believed he had evidence for them.

HOWEVER, there was never any evidence that there were any election issues. Therefore, no grounds whatsoever for it. Note that investigations into alleged election issues DID take place, but it bears repeating (For the 10^303th time) that NO ISSUES OR EVIDENCE OF FRAUD WAS FOUND despite REPEATED investigations!

Any loser in a democratic election could falsely claim there were issues simply because they were unable to accept the loss, as Trump did.

 

[TastySuckToy]

HOWEVER, there was never any evidence that there were any election issues.

That's your opinion.

 

[ByteMe13]

Usually the court issues decisions in June, before the last day of the term in late June or early July. My guess is it come sooner but probably not later than that.

At best, this will be like US v McDonnell. Issued on the last day as the justices slink out of town to their billionaire-financed luxury vacations

 

[ByteMe13]

It would actually be the duty of the President to investigate election issues if he believed he had evidence for them.

Not his job. Of course, there was no evidence anyway