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

Here. Let me put it in crayon

 

This thread only lasted to post #3 before a deflection took place. But it’s different when they do it.

 

Confirming, you don't know the difference between what the news story claimed
https://keyt.com/politics/cnn-us-po...-for-justices-to-hear-trump-immunity-dispute/
And what I claimed.
How embarrassing for you

So glad you put it in Crayon for everyone lol

 

Deflection? To who? This is a thread about trumps charges, bringing them up isn’t a deflection l

 

They didn't reject to hear it. They rejected fast tracking it. But given that the lower court is already fast tracking it is a difference without a distinction. It will still go to the SC.

And the argument is absolutely pitiful. It requires believing that the president is an absolute monarch above the law and has FAILED on the civil level already.

 

He didn’t say you claimed it. Reading fail. Try again!

 

This wouldn’t seem to be too much of a surprise. Leaving aside any ‘favours’ the justices might feel they owe The Stain, there is now a more pressing requirement to deal quickly with the Colorado issue before Jan 5. Everything else gets bumped down the queue, I guess…?

 

He’s already demonstrated that he can’t read in other threads…

 

Its not in a lower court. lol
Its on appeal to the appellant court.
Did you want to provide a link how the appellant court is fast tracking anything?

FALSE
It addresses if Trump was already acquitted of a crime, do they have the right to charge for it again.

 

Normal cherry picking words to not address the OP
No surprise here

 

. . . which is a lower court to the SC. Consult your middle school civics textbook.

I take it you haven't been watching the news.

This case is about the immunity claim. Please do some basic research before posting a thread. You are embarassing yourself. Trump is claiming presidential immunity. That's what this case is about. Not any crime he has or hasn't been acquitted for. And, no, he hasn't been acquitted for the relevant crime he's claiming immunity for. I'm not sure how you possible could have gotten more things wrong here.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

You’re wrong, he’s also claiming crimes while president can’t be charged

 

That's literally what the OP says lol
You got mad at me for addressing your claims, and mad at another for addressing what the article you posted claims.

 

Then you can show us your claim of how they are fast tracking that for us. Right?

[/QUOTE]
The case is about immunity from his past office shields him from civil lawsuits.
One of their arguments is he was acquitted of insurrection in the Senate

 

You seriously haven't even bothered to check up on this case before writing the thread?

Another fail. This case is about immunity from CRIMINAL lawsuits, not civil.

He wasn't acquitted judicially. Catch up. You are WAAAAY behind.

 

Oh, this was you addressing the claims in the OP

Please

 

He's asking for immunity from civil claims over J6

 

For the first motion, Chutkan rejected Trump’s claim that presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for acts that fall within their official responsibilities unless first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

 

So you can't provide any link about the appellant court fast tracking the case?
Who'd a thunk

You mean like this

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.

You see, thats how it works. You make a claim and back it up with the proper information
Still waiting on your information about the appellant court fast tracking anything

Yeah, like you know. lol
Think I'll take the word of the Constitution
Thanks

 

Do you really believe an impeachment and criminal trial are the sand. Since when does legislative decide on criminality?

 

AKA spoonfeeding the dodge crowd

 

When a federal judges states you are acquitted of a criminal claim.
Would you like to see a video of it?

 

I can...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...preme-court-trump-immunity-expedition-denied/

Jan 9...

 

I'll do your homework for you here in a sec.

Yes, hun. That's a criminal case. Not a civil case. Woud you like me to explain the difference?

The Constitution does not say that the President is a monarch immune from all criminal prosecution. Try actually reading it. I know Trump hasn't, but that's no excuse for you.

 

How do you get so much wrong in such a short post?

1. The DC Court of appeals has agreed to hear the case and they HAVE "fast tracked it". A hearing is scheduled for Jan 9
2. THIS appeal has zero to do with the acquittal on the impeachment hearing. That is being considered by the appeals court on ANOTHER appeal. This is solely about whether or not Trump has immunity from prosecution for actions (that Trump claims) were part of his duties as President.