Breaking! Congress To Step In And Give Immunities to Immunize President Trump From Jack Smith ( 18 U.S. Code § 6002 – 3)

This is why the founding fathers gave separation of powers. It's time to put this fanatical abuse of Lawfare against Trump by Jack Smith.

From a commenter on another forum:

[It immunizes him from anything that he might say under oath to the congress. If he says that the election was stolen in that testimony then he is immune from any prosecutions related to that statement. Jack Smith is currently charging Trump based upon him saying that the election was stolen. See how that might work now. All that has to be done is to be asked questions that somehow relate to any of the charges and the charges go away as long as he has immunity when he says them.]






That plan may have worked if it was done BEFORE Trump was indicted, not after.

But feel free to keep grasping at those straws if it make you feel better!
 
That plan may have worked if it was done BEFORE Trump was indicted, not after.

But feel free to keep grasping at those straws if it make you feel better!
One way it could work, is if by doing so, they contaminate the jury pool, to the point where they can't find 12 people who were completely unaware of what Trump told congress.
 
I don't take homework assignments, asshole.
Actually you don't do homework assignments.

Even when the assignment is the answer you sought. You're just too lazy to look it up for yourself. And too stupid to accept multiple people telling you what it said.
 
One way it could work, is if by doing so, they contaminate the jury pool, to the point where they can't find 12 people who were completely unaware of what Trump told congress.

No. Immunity deals are done before indictments.

Jurors can be aware of information, just as long as they can be unbiased (keep an opened mind) until the trial is complete.
 
Jurors can be aware of information, just as long as they can be unbiased (keep an opened mind) until the trial is complete.

That's the sticking point. If Trump in front of an open congress, with millions watching, gives a full "I done it" confession. Between live coverage and the headlines the next day "Trump confesses", the whole country would be aware of Trumps confession.

And no reasonable juror could honestly say, they could hear the accused give a full confession, and not carry a preconceived notion of his guilt.
 
Actually you don't do homework assignments.

Even when the assignment is the answer you sought. You're just too lazy to look it up for yourself. And too stupid to accept multiple people telling you what it said.
If you want to make a point, then make it. Don't ask me to do your work for you, slouch.
 
If I tried to get a court appearance or trial delayed because I had something scheduled for that day, it would have to be something singularly important.
An ex president deserves every consideration. Remember he was elected twice and that is why they are after him.
 
As the supreme court cited in Bush v Gore, all contests had to end before December 12th. Which is why they stopped the counting in Florida, because they couldn't finish by that date.
Show me where the law is that says that.
 
If I talk to someone about killing my boss, is that just speech and is not actionable by the legal system?


If you address the government for a regress of grievances is that actionable by the legal system? Where is it written that a sitting or former president gives up that right?

.
 

Forum List

Back
Top