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

I got the impeachment thing wrong also, I thought they were all part of this.

 

To who? To Biden, that's who. And it continued on throughout the thread.

 

At least you are willing to own up to being wrong.

 

This doesn't clear Trump, but should he win, he will pardon himself.

 

Which is currently an untested legal maneuver. Most legal experts seem to think that SCOTUS would rule that a self pardon is unconstitutional

 

Well if trump wins these, the precedents would apply to him as well.

 

At a minimum it delays them until he’s out of office…

 

Suuure you will

So the case that clearly states its about Civil immunity
Trump is asking an appeals court to give him immunity from civil lawsuits linked to the January 6 Capitol riot
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trying-absolute-immunity-january-6-civil-suits-2022-7
Former President Donald Trump is urging a federal appeals court to rule that immunity from his past office shields him from civil lawsuits alleging that he incited the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

In your mind means criminal
Got it
Now thats a historical first by any poster

Wow, can't get anything past you. lol

 

The last time you pulled this **** I embarrassed you. I guess we need to go for strike two.

This is a CRIMINAL case and the courts have already settled that the president is not immune from civil lawsuits, even while in office.

I'm saying it is criminal because it is criminal.

Guess that makes one of us.

 

Or maybe he can just take a page from your book and start creating straw man on your behalf?

 

.

 

L

l they did and you responded by whining

 

This is actually really big, bigger than anything that's happened thus far. The simple solutions would be 1) Garland appointing actual confirmed attorneys in the places of jursdiction(IE: Washington and Florida) that wouldn't be too hard or 2) Congress getting off its lazy ass and finally recreating the independent charter.

But one has to ask, why didn't Garland just appoint those attorneys in the first place? Why appoint some singular attorney in an executive role? It doesn't make sense.

And maybe 'muh Trump' might get Congress to act, and this all becomes moot but Congress cares too much about its foreign denizens to actually take care of US law here. Maybe, even if it means getting Trump they'd still be too lazy.

 

.
Well maybe, but Trump's AG might step in too to help.

 

That’s not how it works. First he wasn’t charged with a crime in criminal case during impeachment.

 

Yes...
Private citizen Smith was never nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for the particular office of Special Counsel, which he now holds, in the way that U.S. Attorneys are nominated and confirmed for their particular offices. The statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 543, explicitly allows the appointment by the Attorney General of a Special Counsel to assist a U.S. Attorney but not to replace him.

 

You’ll never convince him of that obvious point

 

He should have, why did Biden's DoJ wait three years until the middle of the campaign to file charges? This is a manufactured crisis and now they want to use this manufactured crisis to get special treatment.

 

Special treatment so Trump can clear his name before the election. Why are you opposed to that? Better yet, why is trump?!?

 

Huh, what
If there is no crime, there isn't anything to vote on to remove a president.
THey have to vote guilty or not guilty
Impeachment is a process, not a crime.
The judge acquitted Trump of all crimes
You can listen for yourself
Around the 11 minute mark

 

And it had zero bearing on whether the judicial branch can file charges. Impeachment has zero to do with it.

 

If a federal judge polls a jury, and acquits you of a crime, your acquitted of the crime.
On what legal precedent do you have for charging a president for a crime he was acquitted of.
Not a media blog. Where did you come up with the idea he can be charged twice.

 

Special treatment to further accelerate an already accelerated process and continue to treat a defendant in a way they have never treated other defendants. There's a reason appeals go through a defined process.

Why do you believe appellate courts exist? If you can find the answer to that question you'll have the answer to these.

 

It's even worse than they made it out to be. The entire purpose of a special counsel is to be an outsider with no influence by the DoJ. The DoJ does an investigation and if they determine they need a special counsel they follow the law and an independent prosecutor comes in and investigates. That's not what Garland's DoJ did. They violated the law to give Jack Smith super powers beyond confirmed US attorneys and he was not independent. The team at the DoJ working on the investigation before him just moved over to start working under Jack Smith. So the team is not independent. On top of that they took evidence from their initial investigation and gave it to Jack Smith, thus continuing the previous investigation rather than starting a new independent one. And they purposely didn't bring with them mitigating evidence despite the evidence they did bring with them referencing it. And when the defense asked for it Jack Smith said Trump isn't entitled to it because it's not part of HIS "new" investigation. The entire process has been wholly corrupt and while the left cheers this happening to Trump, it's a dark day for democracy because it won't only ever be used against Trump. If they get away with it once they'll do it again in the future.

 

Why are you answering questions with questions?