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

Every special counsel employs DOJ staff. What’s your evidence he’s not independent?

 

Because you're asking questions that show you do not have foundational knowledge of the topic.

 

They are supposed to start clean. Why do you think special counsels exist and the DoJ doesn't just prosecute the case directly? You're missing the entire point... This is foundational knowledge that is important to have. The only thing "special" about Jack Smith's prosecution is that Garland hand picked a corrupt partisan hack not confirmed by Congress to prosecute his political adversary and the biggest political opponent of his boss. This is exactly why the law says special counsels must be confirmed by Congress. It helps protect the process and the outcome. And I assume it is also why he broke the law.

 

You’ve presented no proof of bias.

 

What foundation do I need to asking why you oppose a speedy trial?

 

There's nothing to clear. Screw ball accusations by a TDS afflicted judge or prosecutor isn't Trump's fault.

 

This time is going to be exactly like the last time.
Unless you can provide any link about the appellant court fast tracking the case?

Really? Show me
Or is this going to be another one of your (I'll check and get back to you later) claims that never seem to show up.

 

Crazy part of this…?

Once the DC Appellate court denies The Stain’s immunity, he will be urging the SCOTUS to expedite the case to overturn that decision…!

What a slimeball…

 

SCOTUS could still act quickly once the appeals court issues its decision.

Until then, if there’s a word that describes those who opposed a quick definitive decision by SCOTUS, and still insist Trump is immune from prosecution, here’s mine;

Despicable!

 

He was “acquitted” because it required a 2/3 vote. 7 Republicans voted for impeachment, along with every dem and every independent. But thats a moot point because he doesn't have to be guilty to be disqualified.

But it will get interesting if he wins the election in Colorado, then the SC rules that he cant be on the ballot….then what ?

But let’s be honest, the SC declined this for 100% political reasons. They were never going to hear it outright, because, IMHO, they already know that Colorado has this right under the constitution. But politically, the conservative majority court, knows that can save political face by pushing this out until after the election, and then it becomes a totally different an animal if Trump is elected

 

Whatever Democrats want is never good for Trump.

 

What's despicable is Democrats trying to disqualify the Republicans leading candidate. Lefties don't like letting the people decide what is best for the country as in Roe-v-Wade. They prefer to use government to run interference preventing the people from deciding. Why should 4 court justices decide America's future? Especially considering Trump has never been charged with insurrection. No one should be above the law but Trump should have his day in court before 4 court justices decide he is guilty. Half the voters support Trump's candidacy for president. Do Democrats want a civil war? It sure looks like it.

 

The prosecution gave him 13 million pages of discovery and then when the trial date was set, to interfere in the election, they started giving him millions more without pushing the trial start date. The right to a speedy trial is a right for the defense, if they so choose. It is not for the prosecution to force a quick start date to ensure the defense can't review the discovery before going to trial. No defense wants several months to go through ~15 million pages of discovery. The defense asked for time to read the discovery and the prosecution and judge denied him the right to read everything before going to trial. They are also fighting him on turning over evidence they reference in existing discovery. The quick start date is also set to kick things off before Trump can finish his legal battles to obtain evidence he believes helps his case.

 

The question is; Will SCOTUS end up overturning a forthcoming decision by DC’s Court of Appeal?

Answer; Most likely not

 

Thats just a theory of the left praying its true. But its not. As confirmed by the 3 dissenting judges and the other 13 states who won't even hear it.

I think you're confused.

The SC declined to hear the 14th amendment case arguing Trump is disqualified from making ANY 2024 ballots because of his alleged role in J6. They declined it in October because there is no basis for the claim. Which is why they refuse to hear cases. You have to have a constitutional claim before they will hear a case. There is no constitutional claim to bring the 14th amendment.

Even Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger dismissed the argument and said he doesn't have the authority to keep Trump off the ballot based on the 14th amendment.

You are talking about Jack Smiths SC request to ram Trumps trial down everyone throat before the appellant court rules, and the SC ruled against him yesterday.

 

It didn’t seem to help for a few

Do you comprehend what a post is? It’s all the words contained (including any quoted remarks from a source)

It shouldn’t be this difficult

 

What are you talking about ?

NO, the SC reused to hear it because they wanted it to play out in the state courts first.

“There is no constitutional claim to bring the 14th amendment of the constitution” ?

Seriously…..re-read that…”there is no claim to bring the 14th amendment to the consitution to the SUPREME COURT” ?

Brad Raffensberger (Republican) says he “doesn't have the authority under Georgia law”, yet he changed laws on who can vote in his state, and where and when and how they vote……That brad Raffensberger who is mired in lawsuits over disenfranchising low income and minority voters….

Nobody “ruled against him”, they said that the system “need to play out”, but in all reality the SC said they wont hear it, just like they wont fast track his case because 3 of the 9 were appointed by him, and he also appointed over 230 federal judges. You really think they want this fast tracked ? If you think that federalist society was just a bystander over the last 20 yeas, you weren’t paying attention.

 

Oh please. There wasn't even a discussion of this going to the state level at that time.
Now you're just making excuses out of thin air

If thats your best comprehension of my statement, thats on you

The SC struck down Jack Smiths request (Thats called ruling against him by the way) to leapfrog over the appellate court so ole Jackie boy could hold his trial prior to the election before the appellate court has a chance to rule.

Not to mention, I don't think ole Jackie boy will be around in January to hear any cases which is already in play.

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI

This Court should reject Mr. Smith’s request for certiorari before judgment for the simple reason that he lacks authority to ask for it. Nor does he have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution. Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices.

Neither Smith nor the position of Special Counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. And that is a serious problem for the American rule of law—whatever one may think of the defendant or the conduct at issue in the underlying prosecution.

The illegality addressed in this brief started on November 18, 2022, when Attorney General Merrick Garland exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority by purporting to appoint Smith to serve as Special Counsel for the Department of Justice (DOJ). Smith was appointed “to conduct the ongoing investigation into whether any person or entity [including former President Donald Trump] violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021.

” See Off. of the Att’y Gen., “Appointment of John L. Smith as Special Counsel,” Order No. 5559-2022 (Nov. 18, 2022). Attorney General No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part and no entity or person, aside from amici curiae and their counsel, made any monetary contribution toward the preparation or submission of this brief. All parties were notified of amici’s intent to file this brief at least seven days before its due date. 2 Garland cited as statutory authority for this appointment 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515, and 533. But none of those statutes, nor any other statutory or constitutional provisions, remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.

 

It's already gone through state courts. They want it to go through federal appellate courts and have a ruling there like every other case. Foundational knowledge is important.

 

Show me what criminal code he has been charged with twice? You can’t. It never happened.

 

Nope, sorry, I asked you first
On what legal precedent do you have for charging a president for a crime he was acquitted of.

 

I answered.

He has only been criminally charged in violation of a criminal code one time.

 

So what legal precedent do you have to charge him again for the same crime?

 

Judges make rulings on motions, petitions, etc. They ruled against his petition forcing him to treat Trump like any other defendant on this matter.

 

It’s the first time he has been charged. You’re arguing from inaccuracy.