by Cristina Laila
The US Supreme Court on Friday denied Jack Smith’s request for a ruling on Trump’s immunity argument.
Jack Smith last Monday asked the US Supreme Court to weigh in on Trump’s immunity claims.
President Trump on Wednesday urged the US Supreme Court to reject Jack Smith’s request to expedite the ruling on his immunity argument.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.
“In 234 years of American history, no president ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in Wednesday’s filing, according to CBS News. “To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide.”
Jack Smith skipped over the appellate court and went straight to the US Supreme Court on Trump’s immunity claims.
On Thursday Jack Smith admitted his January 6 case is currently on hold. He admitted he wants to convict Trump before the 2024 election.
“This case involves—for the first time in our Nation’s history—criminal charges against a former President based on his actions while in office,” Smith wrote in Thursday’s filing, according to Fox News. “And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election. The Nation has a compelling interest in a decision on respondent’s claim of immunity from these charges—and if they are to be tried, a resolution by conviction or acquittal, without undue delay.”
“The court denied without comment special counsel Jack Smith’s request asking the justices to circumvent the normal appeals court process and quickly decide the legal question, which looms large in Trump’s criminal prosecution in Washington over allegations of election interference,” NBC News reported.
Jack Smith will now have to wait for the US Circuit Court of Appeals for DC to make a decision. Oral arguments begin on January 9, 2024.
Jack Smith and his special counsel was improperly (unconstitutionally) appointed!
LINK
LINK
He was expecting the other politically driven cases to sink Trump. However, each obviously partisan and politically motivated charge only increased Trump’s strength, so he played the January 6th card, hoping that would do the trick. Sadly for him, the vast majority of Americans see through the entire charade and keep heaping more support on Trump.
I wonder if they’ll keep the non-violent, no previous record victim of Herr Obergruppenfuhrer Garland in jail while they await the decision?
Eat my Tailwind Jerk Smith Skrreet Skreet Skreee
They were saying, “You should know better, you punk. We don’t care about your political agenda and lawfare charges, FOLLOW THE RULES, BITCH!”
Hey, shitbird, why don’t you indict him again? Maybe THAT ONE will do it!
smith has no case against President Trump. This is no a proper application of law. This is an effort to railroad Trump and as hard as they try they repeatedly come up empty handed.
Jack Smith has just focused full attention on the question*, which will quickly bounce back from the Appeals Court to the SCOTUS with the entire nation watching.
*The question: Should US presidents be given full and permanent immunity from prosecution for all crimes committed while in office?
If yes, a sitting president will be effectively immunized from prosecution for any crime committed to retain office. That would be the end of American democracy and the end of the republic.
Of course, currently any Democrat is immunized from prosecution for REAL CRIMES as long as the weaponized DoJ is in operation. But, at issue is if a former President can be prosecuted for carrying out his duties, like Democrats are trying to do to Trump.
The claim that “any Democrat is immunized from prosecution” is a load of manure. And you’ve evaded the central question of “full and permanent presidential immunity” entirely.
This is why it was very smart of Jack Smith to focus attention on the issue before it actually gets to the Supreme Court. When it does, everyone will understand what a DISASTER it would be to decree that presidents are not prosecutable for criminal actions committed while in office. No way in hell will they get away with a decision that would destroy American democracy.
If they upheld Trump’s assertion, Biden could do anything he wanted to keep Trump out of the White House. It’s a totally absurd assertion. NO ONE is above the law. Not Trump, not Biden, not anybody.
Oh. So, Hunter’s blatant tax evasion, gun charges, FARA violations, influence peddling, extortion and Mann Act violations weren’t prosecuted because all those offenses got lost in the mail? Or what? Or, how about Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden’s theft of classified documents, made readily available to Hunter and the CCP? Has Pelosi been investigated for insider trading? Has Hillary been prosecuted for perjury? Why do that vast, vast majority of BLM/ANTIFA violent rioters get off Scott free when trespassers and paraders from January 6th get extensive prison sentences?
Yeah, try and convince me Democrats don’t get a whole stack of “Get out of jail free” cards. Go ahead.
You’re trying to ignore the central question that the fate of American democracy turns on:
That would be the cost of handing your cult leader a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card.
As we have been saying your question and Jacks ignorance is already outlined clearly in the constitution.
Really? How is that? I’m curious.
If a president were not prosecutable for any crimes committed while in office, I suppose Biden could simply have his opponent shot, and then use his presidential power of pardon to absolve the trigger man.
If that sounds crazy, it’s because it is. It would also be made possible if the Supreme Court upheld Trump’s claim that no crimes a president commits while in office are prosecutable, even after he leaves office.
Refer to: reductio ad absurdum
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 grants the sole power of impeachment to the House of Representatives; Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 assigns the Senate sole responsibility to try impeachments; Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 provides that the sanctions for an impeached and convicted individual are limited to removal from office and potentially a bar from holding future office, but an impeachment proceeding does not preclude criminal liability; Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 provides that the President enjoys the pardon power, but it does not extend to cases of impeachment; and Article II, Section 4 defines which officials are subject to impeachment and what kinds of misconduct constitute impeachable behavior. Article III does not mention impeachment expressly, but Section 1, which establishes that federal judges shall hold their seats during good behavior, is widely understood to provide the unique nature of judicial tenure. And Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 provides that trials, “except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury.”
This stuff is easy to look up, why you must have it spoon fed to you just makes you look very ignorant.
Congress has proven itself ineffective at reining in willful presidents. The solution to that problem is not to give presidents even more unrestrained power.
Trump has stated his willingness to disregard the Constitution when he deems necessary, along with law and regulation based on it. You believe everything he says. Why don’t you take him at his word on that?
He actually demonstrated his willingness, on January 6.
Name a time Trump disregarded the constitution. I can give you lists for Barry and Brandon.
I really dont hang on every word from Trump like you think we do. And no I do not believe everything he says that is your TV brain again.
If Congress wasnt so party hard it would be more effective, but its mostly attention whoring and pandering to morons.
January 6, 2021. Trump disregarded it. Pence refused to, and the multi-state fraudulent elector scheme failed.
Exactly what in the constitution did he disregard?
Do you have the specifics?
Amendent?
Flashback
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/11/16/fact-check-could-electoral-college-elect-hillary-clinton-instead-donald-trump/93951818/
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,* a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
—-
(*The phony electors were not “appointed” in the lawful manner that the legislatures of their respective states directed.)
—-
Clause 3 Electoral College Count
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify,* and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
—-
*The phony electors’ votes were falsely certified and fraudulently submitted to be opened and counted by the President of the Senate. That would be Pence, who refused to go along with this bullshit because he knew damn well it would break his oath to uphold the Constitution.)
—-
In Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, the election itself was not carried out according to those states’ Constitutions. You don’t seem to have a problem with that.
And there he goes, shaking his hat and tap dancing away from Trump’s failed plot to steal the election.
If so, where is the prosecution? Where is the conviction? Almost 3 years later, where is the proof? Just because you can’t defeat a candidate legitimately is no reason to upend the Constitution to make cheating easier, scooter.
Case in point, Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden is STILL in office.
Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden has had his opponents rounded up in FBI raids, imprisoned, denied Constitutional rights, falsely prosecuted, and persecuted by the DoJ. The SOLUTION is to eliminate election fraud and keep corrupt criminals like him out of office.
The only threat Trump poses is a threat to destroying THAT shit.
Typical democrat behavior
What so they all have in Common besides their Dictatorships? They were all big time Gun Control Advocates
I find it unlikely that someone that would actually commit crimes would ever be elected to the Presidency. The ability to rob a bank with immunity is not the goal of those who usually seek the office.
Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden is the exception that proves the rule, but he wasn’t elected. He achieved office through election fraud which it, one, why election fraud was necessary and, two, why election fraud should be forever banished. Look at the crimes Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden is committing to retain office: spying, lawfare, censorship, abuse of power. With the control of the DoJ, it’s unlikely he will be prosecuted before or after he is out of office.
However, seeking the true results of a nation election is the DUTY of the President. Election fraud is illegal and detrimental to the nation (as we are seeing) and there is nothing illegal about it. Further, when Democrats control the “justice” system as they do now, false accusations, frivolous charges and imprisonment of political opponents is now in play, so immunity would take that weapon out of the Democrats hands.
Ideally, no, NO ONE should be immune from prosecution for the commission of a crime. But Democrats, tramping the laws, due process and the Constitution as they currently are, have made conventional thought on the matter far more complicated than it should be.
A better solution would be Democrats being prevented from holding and abusing power.
81 million votes, my ass.
Back to your deep dank cave Jack Smith with the of your fellow trolls
Spurwing old pal is this your house?
I live in a Apartment in Etna Ca Siskiyou County is a Red County In a Blue State
You have our sympathy. Stay strong.
Former AG Meese makes the shocking claim that Jack Smith did not acquire his purported authority as special counsel in a legal or constitutional manner and, therefore lacks standing to represent the United States in front of a federal court.
“Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor. Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos. That fact is sufficient to sink Smith’s petition, and the Court should deny review.”
Democrats won’t let laws, rules, regulations or the Constitution get in the way of their lust for power. Smith was simply the most corrupt scumbag they could find to pursue this illegal lawfare, so they picked him, qualified or not.
Trump tried to remain in office by fraudulent, unconstitutional means. By the way, people died as a result.
——-
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,* a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
—-
(*The phony electors were not “appointed” in the lawful manner that the legislatures of their respective states directed.)
—-
Clause 3 Electoral College Count
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify,* and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
—-
*The phony electors’ votes were falsely certified and fraudulently submitted to be opened and counted by the President of the Senate. That would be Pence, who refused to go along with this bullshit because he knew damn well it would break his oath to uphold the Constitution.)
—-
There is zero evidence of that, a figment of your warped sick ideology.
Jack Luman Smith is an assassin, nothing more. He was hired to politically murder President Trump by any means he can.
The fact that his appointment, his every act in doing so is unconstitutional and illegal is moot: we live in a tyranny, Jack Smith is an assassin of a tyranny.
There’s abundant evidence of it, which is why Trump is so desperate to avoid a trial.
Why has he not been charged with insurrection?
The charges are not valid given smith is unconstitutionally appointed
Would you be happier if that charge were added?
Double jepordy is disallowed.
There’s no “double jeopardy”. Impeachment trials are not criminal trials. They’re political functions. Trump has now been indicted for statutory crimes, which are tried in state and federal criminal courts.
Read the constitution again, is is a trial.
You read Greg’s comment again. He wrote “It’s not a *criminal* trial” (emphasis mine).
We would be happier if the DNC wasn’t butt-f**king the justice system in order to compensate for their own massive failures.
Because the courts are corrupted by Democrats. We’ve seen it over and over. That farce of a trial in NYC is a perfect example. Engoron behaves exactly as Roland Freisler did presiding over Hitler’s People’s Court.
If Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden is so innocent, why won’t he provide the House Committee the bank documents they request?
Why should he bother, since you believe presidents are immune from prosecution anyway?
You really dont get it, they are not immune, lets say the senate would find Biden guilty, their powers would limit them to booting him and he couldnt serve in public office, but found criminally liable. There are Federally minimum sentences for crimes.
Currently, as a Democrat, he would be immune from all prosecution. They would, if the DoJ addressed his crimes at all, drag it out until the statute of limitations expired, as they did with Hunter. Of course, Greg thinks this is just great.
I used Biden only as an example, most likely the VP taking over, would pardon the impeached and convicted “to heal the nation” .
Because immune or not, Democrats have totally destroyed the credibility of the DoJ and any court they infect with their fascist activism. As a fascist yourself, you just cheer it on.
The ones who should be on rial you Dip-Wad is Soros, Gates Swab Biden Obama both the Clintons, Bragg and Smith and all of Antifa and BLM committing those crimes
Yeah, the people Capital Police murdered in the process of turning a peaceful protest into a violent riot.
Orchestrated by the FBI
First it was all BLM and Antifa; now it’s all the FBI. First Trump won by a million votes; now it’s 20 million votes.
Everything with you guys is about throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks.
When was it BLM and ANTIFA at January 6th?
Jesus Christ. Are you actually going to try to act as if you guys didn’t say that?
Well, I never said that those groups were at the insurrection, but you certainly did.
It was a topic of discussion here, for one, and in that thread you yourself mention “the BLM thug who led it.”
In this thread, you say “it was ANTIFA” who organized the riot.
John Sullivan, BLM activist arrested for violence numerous times, was at the forefront of the riot, even selling his video to CNN and MSNBC. That’s a fact, Jack, but I haven’t stated anywhere that BLM organized the riot. Maybe you should bone up on the facts before you open your stupid gap.
Show me where I say ANTIFA played a part.
I already linked to the thread where you say it.
ANTIFA was there as well, but I didn’t say they initiated the riot.
Do you like getting your ass kicked on Christmas Day?
If it ever happens, I’ll let you know.
And, it has been proven, ANTIFA was there. Show me where I said ANTIFA was responsible or the leader. Those words, as you so often like to specify.
So, ass kicking delivered.
Why are you unwilling to stand behind what you wrote in that thread?
Show me where I said, specifically, that ANTIFA caused or led the riot. Why can’t you admit you lied? For that matter, why do you lie all the time?
So what were you saying in that comment?
Does look to me that it was a Deplorable comment:
“Ronald J. Ward
2 years ago
@Nathan Blue:
“
You can’t read? I said ANTIFA was there.
So when Ronald J. Moore wrote that MAGAs would initially blame Antifa for the vote-rigging plan and inciting the sedition that led to the storming of the Capitol, and then that you’d all inevitably switch the focus to “McConnell and Pelosi,” and you wrote
you actually meant that it wasn’t Antifa? Even you need to admit that saying “It was ANTIFA” is a weird way of not saying that it was Antifa.
Notice that Ronald wasn’t listing groups who were at the insurrection; he was listing groups who would be blamed for inciting it. And then you wrote “No, you were right the first time. It was ANTIFA.”
Have the courage to stand behind what you wrote—or at least admit that what you wrote two years ago was incorrect.
Indeed, ANTIFA incited the insurrection. But, where did I say they incited the Capital riot? The “insurrection” began long before; there was no “insurrection” on January 6th. ANTIFA, with Democrat backing and support, are the insurrectionists and violent terrorists.
Idiot.
That would be the May 29, 2020 insurrection.
The insurrection that lasted 4 months and destroyed a federal court house, numerous police stations, assaulted over 1,200 cops and killed dozens. For people that usually in the middle of every violent action, the Democrats like to pretend they know what an “insurrection” is.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/antifa-january-6-capitol-riot-conspiracy-theory-social-media-rcna125369
Roy Epps. More FBI operatives than they could keep up with. Capital Police opens fire on a peaceful crowd. The only people that died were murdered by the Capital Police.
Believe NBC at your own peril.
Deplorable Me, Are you ever going to stop making crap up? Trump was blaming election fraud for his loss weeks before Election Day. Trump clearly instigated the Jan. 6th riot, which led to violence and death. And as 140 cops got the crap beat out of them by the Trump mob, Trump did nothing about it.
The Colorado Supreme Court got it right. And the US Supreme Court should stay out of it and let each state decide whether to allow someone who aided in insurrection be on the ballot.
Do you happen to know any adults that can advise you on the topics at hand?
The Constitution is clear. Trump certainly aided in the insurrection. He is disqualified.
Show us the proof then.
The former US Attorney General contends that Jack Smith, acting as Special Counsel, was not appropriately appointed. Consequently, they argue, all legal actions undertaken by Smith should be considered null and void.
Under 5 U.S. Code § 3332, “An officer, within 30 days after the effective date of his appointment, shall file with the oath of office required by section 3331 of this title an affidavit that neither he nor anyone acting in his behalf has given, transferred, promised, or paid any consideration for or in the expectation or hope of receiving assistance in securing the appointment.”
Failure to take the oath is generally considered a failure to complete the appointment process, rendering the person’s actions as an officer potentially invalid.
Ed Meese is a piece of shit. Who cares what Ed Meese thinks?
On what grounds do you say that? What do you even know about Ed Meese, groomer?
Actually, many people do and they consider him to be a premier Constitutional scholar unlike you who is not fit to teach 5th grade.
I doubt a dimwitted leftie like you has ever read a damn thing previously written by Ed Meese. Your style would be more like the Marxist Eric Holder.
The brief submitted by Meese et al clearly establishes the unconstitutional basis for smith. All indictments from the DC to the Mar A Lago against President Trump are null and void.
The democrats have failed yet again.
Yes, that’s the way in works: someone submits a brief, and everything is undone. Thanks for sharing more of your wealth of legal knowledge with us, Professor!
Did Smith get bitch slapped by the entire USSC, or not?
Are “all indictments from the DC to the Mar A Lago against President Trump…null and void”? If not, go back to soaking your teeth.
Did Smith get bitch slapped by the entire USSC, or not?
Not.
It’s not a decision he’s happy with, I imagine, but the Court didn’t strike the prosecution down; it just said that it won’t rule on it yet.
No?
Did you read the USSC ruling on Smith’s request?
Or are you just showing your clueless self again?
What I said is precisely correct. The justices did not rule one way or the other on the merits of the claim to immunity—they only said that Smith has to start at a lower appellate level before coming to the Supreme Court.
And I said they did where?
Okay. Then show me where the Court literally says that it bitch-slapped Smith. Or a quote where Smith literally says he got bitch-slapped by the Court with this decision. Then I’ll accept your characterization.
Or you could define what you mean by “bitch-slapped” with reference to specific facts of the case, and we could discuss it on those terms.
As it is, you seem to be unwilling to ground the discussion in facts, because whenever you do that, you paint yourself into a metaphorical corner.
They ruled that they don’t give a damn about Smith’s little political gambit to prosecute Trump before the election, he has to follow the proper procedure. THAT is a major blow.
They were null and void from the start. Nothing but fascist political lawfare, borne of desperation and failure.
Another unhinged screed from retire05, World’s Expert!
Ah, did you get your widdle feelings hurt, groomer?
Or does it make you feel inferior to realize that most third graders know more about government than you do?
Maybe the Supreme Court. Who cares what that corrupt, lying, degenerate fascist DNC mouthpiece Smith thinks?
PA illegally sent out mass mail in ballots, according to law they would need to change the state constitution to do so, but they did not so that state’s electors are contested.
GA illegally counted votes without observers, that states votes contested.
WI illegally cured ballots and had illegal ballot boxes, so those votes are contested.
MI, AZ, and GA Machines outside of legal adjudication specifications. Contested.
As Chief law enforcement officer it was Trumps sworn duty to attempt by all legal means to contest the election, and make sure every legal vote was tallied .
It is not against the law to question the results.
Democrats had an army of attorneys that were fighting to not reveal the actual results.
The alternative electors had to be submitted by a certain timeline, should the congress had followed the laws set down by the State legislators and sent the electors home or they could chose to accept the alternatives.
So try again what amendment ?
jack shit is an unethical piece of shit. He has been unconstitutionally appointed.
John Ratcliffe: Stating the obvious, this was a big legal victory for President Trump and a big legal setback for Jack Smith. But I would argue that Jack Smith lost more than just a legal issue at the Supreme Court. He lost credibility. This may be his Mueller moment.
Garland appointed Smith. Obiden compelled Garland to appoint Smith.
A lot of people need to swing from the lampposts.