Posted on 02/15/2024 4:46:31 AM PST by Fury
From the article:
“If this were any other defendant than Donald Trump, the rush to trial—which cannot possibly give the Trump legal team adequate time to prepare its defense—would be deemed wildly unfair.”
“Who appointed Jack Smith ruler of what American voters must know before they head to the polls?” At a minimum, Smith’s actions clearly raise the “perception of an issue under” Section 9-85.500, which requires Smith to consult the Public Integrity Section. One wonders if he did so, and, if so, what the Public Integrity Section and top Justice Department officials said to allow him to proceed.”
Goldsmith does believe that SCOTUS will ultimately reject President Trump’s immunity claim, which I thus far believe is how things will go.
It is not the urging of the Supreme Court [possive pronoun], e.g. the Supreme Court is the one urging. Jack Smith is urging the Supreme Court.
It matters because my initial reading was the incorrect one - what? The Supreme Court is urging this stuff?
I disagree because it means every political decision can now be litigated after the fact. This will create a very weak presidency and we are done for as a nation.
But, there are plenty of grounds for dismissing this suit without deciding the immunity issue and the SC is likely to take that path to leave teh matter ambiguous. It might take the standing issue - Jack Smith was not confirmed by the Senate and therefore has no standing to bring a case on behalf of the US government. That is the easy way out without deciding a monumental issue. Or it could decide that the government has failed to state a claim and dismiss it based upon the pleadings as they stand - e.g. there was no insurrection or you cannot deny the President freedom of speech on political issues any more than anyone else. or...
this case is BS and cannot stand, but at the same time blanket immunity is a huuge step and the consequences are unforeseeable. I mean, does the president have immunity from running a teenage prostitution ring for blackmail and intelligence purposes? It's outrageous and he shoudln't.
good, then obama and biden won’t be able to claim immunity when Trump gets back in
We have a choice: Which America do you want? Trump’s or 0bama’s?
I don’t see the court granting blanket immunity from prosecution to anyone just because they help a particular position.
We shall see but I done see this happening
This is the nub of one of the issues. It would clearly not be considered an official act as President. But defining the contours of an act other that official would take some work.
Part of the “problem” is Impeachment is a political process. What happens if a President is running a prostitution ring or worse, pulls out a gun and murders someone? Things are pretty partisan and you wonder if Impeachment could succeed given those circumstances and these conditions.
A note that running a prostitution ring or murdering someone are clearly impeachable acts. And let’s be frank - the threshold needed to convict is much less - 2/3 - than in a criminal trial. And there’s no requirement that the standard for guilt be “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
I believe they will split the baby again. Trump, the candidate, is not immune from prosecution. Trump, the President, is. Obama murdered a US citizen overseas who, as far as I know, was never charged, let alone convicted, of any crime. I believe his father was, and he was in the vehicle with the father. So far, Obama has immunity. If SCOTUS took away that immunity, could Obama be sued by the family? Also, the court could avoid the whole mess and say the proper place to try a sitting President was in the Senate; Trump, as the President, was tried and not impeached for the same claims of insurrection, so in this case, he can not be tried again.
Removing immunity in its entirety will open Pandora's box. SCOTUS knows this. They will likely find a way to split the baby. Trump will not have blanket immunity. However, he will have some immunity. That will leave Trump's attorneys and the DC Court to fight over what actions can be charged and what cannot. In the meantime, the election will be over, and either Trump wins or gets pardoned so the country can move on.
If the courts looked at the past eight years and the constant attacks by the Democrats against President Trump they could only conclude that the Democrats found a man and or now trying to find a crime to rid themselves of an opponent.
We are living in a critical time in history not only for the US but the world. You have to wonder just what the left is afraid of (rhetorical question, we know what they are afraid of).
The choice for the court is to rule what is best for our nation or what is best for the Democrats.
The wording from the Trump legal team was poorly presented.
If they claimed immunity from prosecution from any of a presidents authorized behaviors, duties and functions that exists, or existed, while president, then it’s a slam dunk.
Possession of any document regardless of security classification is authorized. Ethically it can be argued it’s dangerous and reckless but technically and legally it’s not a violation of any law.
I don’t think that anyone should expect the DOJ to follow it’s own rules about timing of cases and elections. Nothing has been done to indicate that they have any goal but to find President Trump guilty of something and try and get him in a orange jump suit for a mug shot.
There is NO reason to have a trial before the election given this is political lawfare.
Now why'd ya have to bring Bill Clinton into it?
Wasn’t Jack Smith illegally selected by Biden OH WAIT those nasty rules thing Biden hates so much again.
One possible scenario is that SCOTUS will kick the can down the road and allow the D.C. trial against Trump to proceed while making no ruling one way or the other on Presidential immunity until after the trial and conviction.
If they rule that Presidents don’t have immunity, an argument could very easily be made that no one in government does. Every government worker could be sued or imprisoned for official acts, including Supreme Court Justices. I don’t see that ruling being very popular among Washington D.C.’s denizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.