SCOTUS reject Jack Smiths request for justices to hear Trump immunity dispute

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track arguments on whether Donald Trump has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office.

The court’s decision is a major blow to Smith, who made an extraordinary gamble when he asked the justices to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly deciding a fundamental issue in his election subversion criminal case against Trump.

The court’s move is a major victory for Trump, whose strategy of delay in the criminal case included mounting a protracted fight over the immunity question, which must be settled before his case goes to trial.
https://keyt.com/politics/cnn-us-po...-for-justices-to-hear-trump-immunity-dispute/

So after most of Jack Smiths other failures due to his ignorance prosecuting other political individuals, here's yet another idiotic request being turned down so Smith can ram a trial through before an election.

 

Why don’t you want trump to have a chance to clear his name before the election?
And you also seem to be admitting trumps claims are ridiculous, otherwise you’d want them expedite a decision in his favor.

 

One of trumps claims is being impeached means he can’t be criminally charged. I wonder why nobody is asking house republicans if they agree and still want to impeach Biden lol

 

So you just make up claims about what someone else thinks because you can't address the OP?
Who'd a thunk

 

SCOTUS punts and saves Agent Orange for now, justice delayed, justice denied.

 

So you think people acquitted of charges should be charged again because you didn't get the ruling you liked the first time?

 

I did address it. Scotus is doing trump and the nation a disservice.

 

So if Biden gets impeached he can’t be charged?

 

Thats your understanding?
Just wow

 

No, it’s trumps claim, and seems to be yours. So if Biden gets impeached and wins, he can be charged in criminal court, or not?

 

Really, show me where you addressed the SCOTUS about anything

 

You may not be remember, but you made comments in the OP. Am I not allowed to respond to your editorializing?

 

Nobody but you ever made that claim. lol
This is about Jack Smith asking the SCOTUS to leap frog over the appellant court before any decision is rendered, so he can ram his case down everyones throat first.

 

That wasn't your claim
You stated this

Try again

 

Your own post says this is nothing more than a delay tactic.

 

Cool. Does that mean you’re not gonna respond to anything I said?

 

LMAO!

 

So you think trump will lose. Otherwise you’d be rooting for Scotus to rule in his favor.
One of trumps claims is that putting him trial after impeachment is double jeopardy. Do you agree or not?

 

Nope, unlike the left, I don't cheer for breaking the law or stepping over it so I can get someone I don't want to run as a candidate.

He was already acquitted on charges of insurrection.
So you don't like that ruling so you want to keep charging him until you get what you want?
This is the new thinking of the left
Its too bad how blind the left is for the hatred for one person thinking this can't come back to bite them in their own asses.
But we have become used to it

 

You mean like the other 10 responses to things you said?

 

If U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese's Amicus Brief is correct, than Jack Smith may not have a job as Special Counsel come the New Year.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...0231220140217967_US v. Trump amicus final.pdf



CONCLUSION

Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, 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. We express no views on the merits issues addressed in Smith’s unauthorized petition.

 

I never said that. Where did you get that from?
Psst, what you imagined doesn't count

 

Excellent post.

 

So if Biden gets impeached for whatever republicans think he did, he’d be immune from further charges for the same offenses, right?

 

Oddly, I read that Smith did not overtly cite the election as the reason for doing it fast. He should have. The American people ought to have a better idea of if the person they're voting for is a criminal or not before needing to vote.

Calling it a major victory seems a bit much, unless you're just assuming Trump will be able to get rid of the charges by being elected. Assuming that the trial must be pushed beyond the election just because the appeals court needs to rule first is also a bit of an assumption. I guess he does have a lot of other trials to deal with.