Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...presidents-substantial-protection-prosecution

Judge Chutkan takes a major blow. She ridiculously and corruptly claimed ex-Presidents have no immunity for officials acts in her overzealous efforts to assist in the prosecution of Trump and rush everything without even allowing Trump’s legal team to read the discovery before going to trial because she claims Jack Smith’s team gave the defense post-it notes that they could solely base their defense on (knowing it was a losing strategy). Trump’s team argued presidents have immunity for official acts. Supreme Court says she’s wrong, obviously so.

Even the government’s attorneys didn’t even try to repeat the DC Courts’ stupid argument at the Supreme Court. They knew it had no basis in law and couldn’t repeat it with a straight face to someone who could ask them to substantiate it. Despite the the government’s attorneys not even siding with Chutkan at the Supreme Court, it appears the courts three liberal justices sided with her anyway, lol.

It’s yet another showing of how Jack Smith, Chutkan, and the DC appellate courts appear to be wholly corrupt and have effectively been doing the bidding of the DNC. Not everything in the indictment may be classified as an “official act” so now they have to restart things and argue over what was an official act and what was a personal act. I’m sure there will be disagreements which should all be appealable by either side.

This is a huge blow to Jack Smith and destroys his entire narrative in both DC and Florida.

 

It absolutely does not. Since when is election interference and "official act" ?

Was the 1/6 Insurrection an "official act " ? How very banana of you.

 

The constitution is delightfully vague so as to put partisan attacks dressed up in respectful clothing, back in litigation where it belongs.
Smith is done. no trial before election.
Judge Chutcan can be prosecuted for racist sentencing of J6 defendants. Who cares if it sticks or not? Look it up: L A W F A R E. Hoovering up your little pile of money you saved for your retirement.

 

From the ruling:

Long story short, a lot of Jack Smith’s novel theory to prosecute a former president for actions conducted as part of his presidential duties just went up in smoke. His trials now have more holes than Swiss cheese. Once you start removing acts within his core scope, or potentially even the outer perimeter, he may not be left with much to prosecute.

Additionally, because Chutkan was corruptly just going along with everything Jack Smith wanted to get a conviction against Trump before the trial, there was a lot of diligence that was never done which leaves a ton of unanswered questions. Because Chutkan didn’t do the work that Cannon has been doing they have to restart the process nearly from scratch in order to build a record for the inevitable upcoming appeals from Trump or Smith’s team. Cannon could now be closer to going to trial than Chutkan because she has handled the case more competently and has made less legal errors. Building out the case and record for appeal was the correct thing to do and has proven more efficient. I’m pretty sure Cannon already has a hearing this week to discuss the immunity question and how it will affect the charges. While the Supreme Court was busy correcting Chutkan’s obvious mistakes, Cannon is charging forward.

It’s worth reminding people that Jack Smith’s arrogance and ethical violations are now put on blast. The media warfare game against Cannon was proven to be just a crybaby whining for his binky. Just because Chutkan played ball with violating Trump’s rights doesn’t mean that Cannon had to do the same.

 

Corrupt Cannon did no work, other than to review her appointment by the Orange Felon. What a travesty of justice when judges become beholden to felons.

 

Completely expected by anyone that wasn't a Trump hater. Presidents HAVE to have immunity for their official acts. Otherwise every single President we have ever had should have been prosecuted for crimes.

 

Hmm.. so you entirely support the prosecution of mr Biden et al and what they've been attempting since 2022 or so....

 

Prosecution of who ? For what ? Since 2022 ? Are you talking about Hunter ? He's not president nor an ex-president.

 

Nah.. it's not hard to create the roster. Garland. Smith, Chutkan, And perhaps other luminaries like Joe. Since corruption isn't an official act, it sure seems like the door is going to be wide open when mr Biden is out of office for his complicity, corruption, and collusion with folks like Fani and Bragg..... Things just got a whole lot worse for Democrats.

And when you think about it, mr Schumer, and ms Pelosi do also seem to have been brought squarely into the prosecutorial bubble.

 

Agreed. The only reason Chutkan and the appellate courts made their broad and ridiculous rulings was because they wanted to convict Trump of something before the election. They were okay with a conviction getting appealed, but they weren’t okay with the magnitude of the case being diminished or dismissed. Now they have to split hairs and present the evidence for each charge to show why it isn’t covered by immunity before they can get to trial. And, the decisions are likely to be appealed. This is going to force Jack Smith and his team to really show their hand to the American public before this goes to trial. And once previously presumed criminal elements become legal activity it will throw a wrench into things. They’re effectively being exposed for prosecuting Trump because they didn’t like how he did his job. They weren’t elected. And they don’t get to charge a president because they did something they didn’t like.

Garland had to have known that Jack Smith was an unethical screwup when he picked him to prosecute Trump. But, Jack Smith’s history is getting overturned after the fact. He bit off more than he could chew and made a series of blunders.

 

The table is being set to send Garland to jail for contempt if congress, Mayorkas for lying to congress. They only need two to even the (Navarro, Bannon) score. I would send a demand for Eric Holder to appear to restart the clock on him.

 

You keep making this claim except the Supreme Court clearly endorsed Cannon's position of doing things slowly and methodically, building a record and making sure all "I"'s are dotted and "T"'s crossed. You baseless accusations sound like sour grapes.

You are literally claiming the one who did things properly is some how biased but the one who got smacked down for not doing things properly was somehow correct. You have that entirely backwards.

 

No, that's the thing, - it was not an official act. Bush lying Congress and fabricating evidence and taking us to was in Iraq + torturing prisoners were "official acts", but organizing a riot is obviously NOT. In other words, Bush has nothing to fear, which was also echoed by Obama on Day-1, but Trump is not immune from the stunts which had nothing to do with "official acts".

 

Trump's getting the presidency. I don't know why you're even trying to prosecute him. At this point it's over

 

Your opinion on what actions in the indictment were official, unofficial, core, inner perimeter, outer perimeter, etc, has no bearing on her false ruling. And because she failed to evaluate these charges in this manner, as she should have in the first place, the individual acts and charges could not be determined by the Supreme Court when they issued this ruling... which they would have done. Now they have to go back to the well to redo all of that work, and it will likely be appealed back to the Supreme Court by either Smith or Trump, depending on who wins on which charges. She messed up, royally. She was sloppy and allowed her political corruption to dictate her decision to rush the process at the prosecution's demands in order to interfere in the election rather than to seek justice. This ruling is a total slap in the face of Chutkan and Jack Smith. The fact that the liberal justices allowed Sotomoyar, of the three, to write the dissent on this important ruling shows what they think about it.

 

Neither does yours, and I didn't say anything about her ruling, I only said that organizing such event is not an "official act", - obviously. None of the "stolen election" nonsense was official acts, they were desperate cries of a sore loser.

 

Yes you did, it's not my fault if you couldn't comprehend that fact.

He wasn't charged for "organizing such event," whatever that means.

 

Then quote it.

Here. There is nothing about the ruling you are obsessed about.

There are "official acts", and acts which are not official, like organizing rallies to rile up people to assault the Capitol

 

Except Trump DIDN'T organize a riot. And there's plenty of evidence showing that he didn't want a riot. Starting with his entire presidency being against rioting.

 

You realize all this does is send it back to the trial court to decide what was official or not... right?

 

You know what ARE official acts? Questioning election officials about video's showing questionable acts and due to such asking them to make sure that they have the correct vote count and that no fraudulent votes were cast, and counted.

 

You what's not an official act? Asking someone to find a specific number of votes for you.

 

Yep. What @CornPop is saying is that Judge Chutkan should have done things correctly in the first place. If she had SCOTUS would have been able to rule more narrowly on the specific acts in question. But since she didn't, and what came before SCOTUS was so generalized they couldn't rule more narrowly. They had to rule on something that was already known. If she had done her job properly it would have actually saved time. Now its gotta go back and each specific thing they're trying to charge Trump for has to be examined to determine if it falls under presidential acts immunity or personal actions outside of the presidency. Something that could have been done prior to all this going to SCOTUS. But because she, and Smith, were trying to get Trump convicted prior to the election in order to affect the election they F'd up. Now they're paying the price for the gamesmanship of LAWFARE....well...at least partially.

 

That's for the lawyers to show, or disprove, but the point is that such event is not "official act". He did organize the event, and whether or not he wanted it to turn into a riot is for them to discuss. It was 100% about Donald Trump whining about losing the elections, and nothing to do with running the country.

Lawfare is now officially legalized with this ruling, since dealing with DoJ is an "official act"

 

No, Biden can order the head of the FBI to conduct a search of marlago for more documents. And this time send trigger happy agents with hair triggers and make sure trump is at home when they conduct the search.
And that would all be perfectly legal under the SupremeCcourt's ruling.