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

Going over this conversation again and I agree with @Condor060 that there seems to be some confusion. I can't tell if you're talking about the Colorado case or the Chutkan case.

 

Why don't you want him to have due process?

 

Show me where he made that claim about CRIMINAL immunity. He said that the impeachment was a government action to remove him or prevent him from running again and it failed in the Congress. That on top of the fact that the DOJ special prosecutor who investigated did not bring charges. Therefore he should have immunity from this civil lawsuit to remove him from the ballot. And he should this court has no jurisdiction in this matter.

 

Do you believe prosecutors should use their prosecutorial powers to affect the outcome of an election?
Do you say the same about how we should have known about the Biden family influence and racketeering that was covered up?

 

What due process am I denying him?

 

It’s literally what he’s going to Scotus for.

 

Aren't you the one who trying to shame Trump to jump into a trial so he can clear his name for you before the appellant court rules on his case?

 

Going on trial isn’t denying due process lol

 

yep, when guilty, delay and look for technicalities..... happens often.... especially with the rich and powerful...

 

Here ya go. He claimed criminal immunity because he was president.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution in his election interference case in Washington, a federal judge ruled Friday, knocking down the Republican’s bid to derail the case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

 

So you think someone bought off the SCOTUS.

 

Leap frogging over an appeal just to have a trial is denying due process

 

Lol it’s not leapfrogging an appeal, it’s speeding it up. It’s gonna end up with Scotus anyway.

 

Man, with some posters you just have to go the long way around the barn because for what ever reason, they just don't keep up.

Trump has an appeal to be heard that will decided if he has immunity from prosecution while president.
Jack Smith wants to have his trial before the appeal is heard.
Those are two different cases.

Dumb ass Jack decided to go to the SCOTUS to get them to allow him to have his trail before the appeal is heard.
And that shot him down because Jack is trying to stop legal due process.

 

Lol he asked Scotus to hear the appeal, not to block appeals.

 

Which has nothing to do with anything posted.
Congratulations, you just provided something nobody ever talked about

 

“Jack Smith wants to have his trial before the appeal is heard.”
This is complete fiction. He’s trying to speed up the appeal, not prevent it.

 

Name one claim I've made that you've requested evidence for and I haven't provided? The last time you asked, I provided, and you ran away and hid.

Since you can't be bothered to pay attention, here it is: U.S. appeals court grants Justice Dept expedited appeal in Trump case [Video] (aol.com)

Let me guess: you are going to run away again and later ask me for a link for something entirely different and pretend I didn't provide this, just like you did last time.

 

1. Nobody (including me) has any reason to run from any of your post, and the reason is number 2

2. Wrong Appeal. lol This isn't the appeal Jack Smith was trying to leap frog. Which is the appeal Trump filed for immunity.

But you knew that and thought you could get away with another sideways claim because you stated the immunity appeal was fast tracked but couldn't find it. lol

Anything else before you go. lol

 

You should get out more often.

CNN
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.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jack-smith/index.html

 

Speaking of hiding, when were you going to provide this before you ran away

Still waiting on this data.

 

Skip one level of appeal to do what’s going to happen anyway. Once the lower court rules, the other party will appeal.

 

Not so fast.
So you were wrong when you claimed

 

Logic tells me that SCOTUS agrees that Humpty does not have presidential immunity, as IF it did, it would have allowed Smith's motion and immediately ruled Humpty did/does have said immunity.

 

Nope, 100% accurate. Any appeal is going to end up with Scotus.