BREAKING: It's Official ----Judge Chutkan Pauses Trump DC Case Amid Dispute Over Immunity Argument

[MAGA Macho Man]

Gotta love it. Jack Smith screwed up and non American born Jamaican Judge Chutkan realizes she's got to put the brakes on this fiasco.

BREAKING: Judge Chutkan Pauses Trump DC Case Amid Dispute Over Immunity Argument | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Obama-appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan paused Trump’s January 6 case in DC amid a dispute over the former president’s immunity argument.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[pknopp]

The Supreme Court is going to rule on this.

 

[Dekster]

Can't imagine the SCOTUS, even this one, saying the POTUS is above the law by default. If they do take it up, they are likely to return it saying the issue can't be decided as a matter of law yet.

 

[Darkwind]

Can't imagine the SCOTUS, even this one, saying the POTUS is above the law by default. If they do take it up, they are likely to return it saying the issue can't be decided as a matter of law yet.

Above what law? That people should protest an election that they thought was stolen? That he deliberately said to do it peacefully?

Presidents all the time stand at the bully pulpit and spew rhetoric that can be considered inflammatory. It isn't a crime, or hasn't been a crime in the past, but suddenly, for this one President, it is?

I'll wait for the SCOTUS to rule. I'm thinking this time next year maybe. Or they may expedite it.

 

[Lemmi]

The Supremes should rule that Jack Smith has no standing. Wouldn't that shake American jurisprudence to its core?

 

[Blaster]

SCOTUS should rule that Smith belongs in a mental institution.

 

[Godboy]

Can't imagine the SCOTUS, even this one, saying the POTUS is above the law by default. If they do take it up, they are likely to return it saying the issue can't be decided as a matter of law yet.

What law did Trump break?

 

[Godboy]

SCOTUS should rule that Smith belongs in a mental institution.

I think a gulag would be more appropriate.

 

[Dekster]

Above what law? That people should protest an election that they thought was stolen? That he deliberately said to do it peacefully?

Presidents all the time stand at the bully pulpit and spew rhetoric that can be considered inflammatory. It isn't a crime, or hasn't been a crime in the past, but suddenly, for this one President, it is?

I'll wait for the SCOTUS to rule. I'm thinking this time next year maybe. Or they may expedite it.

The issue he is trying to send to him is he has absolute immunity for anything he did while POTUS. They are going to punt on that one some way some how.

 

[kyzr]

The issue he is trying to send to him is he has absolute immunity for anything he did while POTUS. They are going to punt on that one some way some how.

Trump was impeached for J6 and found not guilty.
Smith is putting Trump in "double-jeopardy" by going after Trump's J6 infractions again. Obviously the USSC will toss Smith's case.

The USSC should rule that a president can only be impeached for infractions, not arrested, total immunity from prosecution.
Otherwise Soros DAs will be indicting Republican presidents for all kinds of nonsense.

The USSC can toss all of 91 bullshit counts against Trump...stay tuned.

 

[SeaMajor7]

The Stalinist Struggle is hitting THE WALL!!!!!
Stupid Marxist idiots forgot they need MASS MURDER to get their way.
Better luck next time.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Above what law? That people should protest an election that they thought was stolen? That he deliberately said to do it peacefully?

Presidents all the time stand at the bully pulpit and spew rhetoric that can be considered inflammatory. It isn't a crime, or hasn't been a crime in the past, but suddenly, for this one President, it is?

I'll wait for the SCOTUS to rule. I'm thinking this time next year maybe. Or they may expedite it.

The SCOTUS is not being asked to rule on the merits of a specific case, but on the general idea that the POTUS has unlimited immunity while in office.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump was impeached for J6 and found not guilty.
Smith is putting Trump in "double-jeopardy" by going after Trump's J6 infractions again. Obviously the USSC will toss Smith's case.

This might be the stupidest thing you have ever posted.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The USSC should rule that a president can only be impeached for infractions, not arrested, total immunity from prosecution.

Why is it not surprising that you believe the POTUS should be above the law, that seems to just the kind of thing you would support.

 

[pknopp]

Why is it not surprising that you believe the POTUS should be above the law, that seems to just the kind of thing you would support.

I kill time here but I only believe a small portion of the things people post.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I kill time here but I only believe a small portion of the things people post.

I guess the bigger question is do they believe the shit they post?

 

[kyzr]

This might be the stupidest thing you have ever posted.

Why? You type shit with no proof all the time. You do know what you can do with your partisan "opinions"?

 

[kyzr]

Why is it not surprising that you believe the POTUS should be above the law, that seems to just the kind of thing you would support.

Not above the Law, under the Constitution, duh.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why? You type shit with no proof all the time. You do know what you can do with your partisan "opinions"?

Why was it stupid? Perhaps because an impeachment is not a legal proceeding thus it cannot be used to invoke double jeopardy.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Can't imagine the SCOTUS, even this one, saying the POTUS is above the law by default. If they do take it up, they are likely to return it saying the issue can't be decided as a matter of law yet.

It is not about POTUS - or anyone else - being "above the law."

If it were a legitimate criminal case, it would be about whether a former president can now be prosecuted for actions he took while president.

For example, when Bush the Younger attacked Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, there was talk from Democrats that he was really taking vengeance on people who had attempted to assasinate his father. He was compared to Michael Corleone. If they really believed that, they might have come into power and prosecuted Bush for the murders of all the people ho bombed. The question would have been whether a former president can be held criminally responsible for official acts as president.

If the ruling be that he cannot, that would not be him being "above the law." It's a pretty immature way to look at it. It would be about whether a specific official is immune from certain acts, something that applies to many professions. A boxer is not prosecuted for assault if he pummels his opponent to unconsciousness. A surgeon is not charged with murder if he undertakes a risky procedure and the patient dies. There would be no dramatic speech to the jury about a knife-weilding assailant.

But, this is not such a weighty-issued case. This is a bunch of Democrats trying to prosecute a former president for free speech while in office. It has zero validity. It could only fly with a heavily partisan judge, and an incredibly gullible jury. The first normal judge that takes the appeal will toss it out, likely summarily.

On that day, I look forward to the liberal tears cocktails I'll be celebrating with.