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

[Harpy Eagle]

Or maybe you aren't as smart as them. There could be that.

Still waiting on that list of your smart lawyers.

 

[Marener]

The President is clearly not above the law. That is a red herring contention. Just because that’s the way the Special Persecutor has attempted to frame the issue, doesn’t make it the question.

Tell us what the question is then.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Thomas will... Seriously he will probably say Trump is above the law.

Thomas will for sure, and likely ACB, but the rest should be smarter than that

 

[DBA]

Why should I be careful?

I mean you should be careful what you wish for. You seem to be enamored with the traitor in office. You make excuses for him and his entire family every chance you get. My guess is that you would be disappointed if he went to prison.

 

[BlindBoo]

You don't think double-jeopardy applies here? You may be very surprised to find out that many very intelligent attorneys disagree with you regarding claims of double-jeopardy. You don't believe the SC is taking this into consideration?

"President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn't get away with anything yet – yet.
We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one." Mitch McConnell.

The Senate trial is not a trial in a court of law.

 

[Marener]

I mean you should be careful what you wish for. You seem to be enamored with the traitor in office. You make excuses for him and his entire family every chance you get. My guess is that you would be disappointed if he went to prison.

I‘m not in a cult and not enamored.

You seem to think I would have a problem
with Biden facing criminal prosecution for illegal acts.

I don’t.

Probably because of that whole “not in a cult” thing.

 

[DBA]

Thomas will for sure, and likely ACB, but the rest should be smarter than that

Obviously you are claiming that Thomas and Barrett are partisans, unwilling to break rank from the Republican Party. It is hilarious that the same standard is not used for Democratic SCJs that NEVER break rank with the Democratic Party. They vote in a block, every time.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Obviously you are claiming that Thomas and Barrett are partisans, unwilling to break rank from the Republican Party. It is hilarious that the same standard is not used for Democratic SCJs that NEVER break rank with the Democratic Party. They vote in a block, every time.

The same standard stands for them as well. Why would you think it does not?

 

[DBA]

I‘m not in a cult and not enamored.

You seem to think I would have a problem
with Biden facing criminal prosecution for illegal acts.

I don’t.

Probably because of that whole “not in a cult” thing.

Or maybe it is because you defend them at every turn, even when common sense should prevail. Yes, you are brainwashed, indoctrinated and conditioned to protect Democrats beyond all reason.
Call it what you will, but it is rather obvious.

 

[DBA]

The same standard stands for them as well. Why would you think it does not?

Perhaps because I don't hear Democrats talking about just how partisan the Democratic SCJ's are, when clearly it is the Republican SCJ's that are much more likely NOT to vote as a block.

 

[Marener]

Or maybe it is because you defend them at every turn, even when common sense should prevail. Yes, you are brainwashed, indoctrinated and conditioned to protect Democrats beyond all reason.
Call it what you will, but it is rather obvious.

I defend him from brainwashed Trump cultists who make shit up and demand we all believe it because they say it’s “common sense“ which is what they say when they have nothing to support their dogma.

Every time a cultist says it’s “common sense”, it means they are repeating the lies they’re told to believe.

 

[MagicMike]

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

Naw.
It's a setup.
She knows The SCOTUS is going to shoot down Trump's immunity claim next month.
Then, once that happens, his trial can proceed and once he's found guilty he won't have the option of appealing on the grounds that the judge acted innappropriately and outside of her jurisdiction while the case awaited the appeal decision.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Perhaps because I don't hear Democrats talking about just how partisan the Democratic SCJ's are, when clearly it is the Republican SCJ's that are much more likely NOT to vote as a block.

and you do not have Repubs talk about how partisan some of the Repubs SCJs are. Lets face it, neither of side will call out there own, this is not news to anyone

 

[CowboyTed]

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.

Well for starters and Impeachment is political process not a Judicial one. Even Mitch McConnell when not convicting him said it was for the Judicial process(Courts) to decide...

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acquit-trump/index.html

So no double jeopardy.... That one is a massive stretch of suspended reality.... The basics of law would solve this one...

Saying that Clarence Thomas will will vote in favour of Trump..

 

[BackAgain]

Tell us what the question is then.

Whether the President is immune from prosecution for official actions.

Trump has claimed that this Jan 6 prosecution seeks to criminalize his actions AS President. By contrast, the insidious Special Persecutor has falsely attempted to claim that what what Trump seeks is immunity merely because of his status as President.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/trump-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

 

[Independent thinker]

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

They are so anxious to get Trump they jumped the gun before even finding out if he can be charged with anything.

 

[DBA]

I defend him from brainwashed Trump cultists who make shit up and demand we all believe it because they say it’s “common sense“ which is what they say when they have nothing to support their dogma.

Every time a cultist says it’s “common sense”, it means they are repeating the lies they’re told to believe.

Spoken like a fully indoctrinated fool.

Look, anybody with a lick of common sense knows that foreign companies don't pay millions of dollars to kids of the US VP for nothing. Companies don't pay real money for illusions of access. An innocent person doesn't change his story as evidence surfaces. First Joe says he doesn't have any knowledge of his son's business dealings. As whistleblower's testimony surfaces, his story changes to he wasn't involved in his son's business dealings. Now, as even more information has surfaced, the story, according to Hunter is that his dad had no financial involvement in his business dealings. Normal people don't have 20 shell(meaning no income or business purpose) companies setup to funnel money.

There is much more, but you are blinded by your allegiance.

 

[DBA]

and you do not have Repubs talk about how partisan some of the Repubs SCJs are. Lets face it, neither of side will call out there own, this is not news to anyone

There are more conservative justices than others, but the voting records of the Republican justices when compared to the Democratic justices shows a semblance of unbiased interpretation of the law vs the Democratic justices always coming to the same conclusions that align with the Democratic Party. The point is that even if all justices can be partisan, the Republicans are clearly far less so.

 

[CowboyTed]

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.

So the President orders the killing of every memeber of Congress and Senate from the opposition....

You say he is above prosecution...

So the President can do what he likes... Including killing the whole SC, so there is no supreme court...

You say that is ridiliouc but just read 'How to be come a Dictator.

4. Get rid of your political enemies...
If somone in the SC votes against you, make them a political enemy, Trump has already accused Judges of be his political enemy.

7 Steps to Becoming a Dictator

A manual for strengthening your power position as elected leader.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[CowboyTed]

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.

That is not what Jack Smith is asking...

Trump was performing his Presidential duties when he was overseeing the fake electors scheme. That has been clearly ruled before. Not everything a President does is apart of his duties as President...

So if a President shoots his political opponent, can he be arrested and charged?