JUST IN: Trump Files Motion to Dismiss Jack Smith’s DC Jan 6 Case, Citing ‘Presidential Immunity’

[Delldude]

Presidential immunity does not exist.

It does and the courts will decide.

 

[SavannahMann]

It does and the courts will decide.

Why did Ford pardon Nixon?

 

[Delldude]

Why did Ford pardon Nixon?

In a Washington Post story published the night Ford died, journalist Bob Woodward said that Ford once told Woodward he decided to pardon Nixon for other reasons, primarily the friendship that Ford and Nixon shared.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)

Fitzgerald testified to Congress that the Air Force was experiencing severe cost overruns and technical difficulties regarding the development of a transport plane. He worked for the Air Force as a management analyst but was fired during a departmental reorganization and reduction in force under the presidency of Richard M. Nixon. He brought a claim for damages, with Nixon named as a defendant, arguing that he had been fired and his position removed as retaliation for testifying before Congress. Nixon raised the defense of absolute presidential immunity, which was rejected by the trial court but accepted by the appellate court, which dismissed the case.

 

[SavannahMann]

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)

Fitzgerald testified to Congress that the Air Force was experiencing severe cost overruns and technical difficulties regarding the development of a transport plane. He worked for the Air Force as a management analyst but was fired during a departmental reorganization and reduction in force under the presidency of Richard M. Nixon. He brought a claim for damages, with Nixon named as a defendant, arguing that he had been fired and his position removed as retaliation for testifying before Congress. Nixon raised the defense of absolute presidential immunity, which was rejected by the trial court but accepted by the appellate court, which dismissed the case.

Oh my Lord. You guys are not just comparing Apples and Oranges, you are using the comparison to complain that Watermelons don’t exist.

Civil is a lawsuit. Criminal is prison. The decision you are quoting is about civil damages. Let’s say the President decides that the US Army will use Unicor beds. These beds are manufactured by Prison Industries. The contract to my company is not renewed. I can’t sue the President individually for a decision in the line of duty that costs me money. That is the decision.

Nixon was facing indictment. Ford Pardoned him. Thus ended any possibility of Prosecution.

Watergate and the Constitution

Background When Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal, it was only the second time in our history that impeachment of a President had been considered. Nearly every action taken with regard to the case had some constitutional significance. The document shown here...

www.archives.gov

Now even if. And I don’t believe it does. But even if your argument is correct that nothing a President does in office can get him Prosecuted. What about after? Does this immunity continue for all time?

 

[Delldude]

Oh my Lord. You guys are not just comparing Apples and Oranges, you are using the comparison to complain that Watermelons don’t exist.

Presidential immunity exists without regard to civil or criminal.
If it was criminal charges, then it is congress' job to impeach and remove from office, then criminal charges would be applied.

 

[SavannahMann]

Presidential immunity exists without regard to civil or criminal.
If it was criminal charges, then it is congress' job to impeach and remove from office, then criminal charges would be applied.

So to make sure I understand. If Biden ordered the deaths of anyone wearing a MAGA hat, it would be fine and dandy so long as the Senate didn’t remove him from office.

Perfectly legal. No crime committed. Is that your position?

 

[SavannahMann]

Presidential immunity exists without regard to civil or criminal.
If it was criminal charges, then it is congress' job to impeach and remove from office, then criminal charges would be applied.

Ok. To make sure I understand. If Biden ordered the Secret Service to shoot Trump in the head, and 34 Senators remained loyal, nothing could be done about the Murder even when Biden got out of office. And this immunity continues for life unabated. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Delldude]

Ok. To make sure I understand. If Biden ordered the Secret Service to shoot Trump in the head, and 34 Senators remained loyal, nothing could be done about the Murder even when Biden got out of office. And this immunity continues for life unabated. Is that what you are saying?

Biden would pardon himself before leaving office, as any president would in that scenario.
SO yes, he would be immune for life.

 

[SavannahMann]

Biden would pardon himself before leaving office, as any president would in that scenario.
SO yes, he would be immune for life.

No. You said it that immunity existed period. So I’m trying to clarify. How can Trump be in possession of immunity if he wasn’t pardoned? Why would Biden need a Pardon to be immune. According to your post unless the President is removed from office by the Senate he can’t be prosecuted for any crimes.

Presidential immunity exists without regard to civil or criminal.
If it was criminal charges, then it is congress' job to impeach and remove from office, then criminal charges would be applied.

So Biden could order the assassination of Trump and so long as 34 Senators voted to keep him in office no charges could be brought. Is that your contention?

 

[Delldude]

So Biden could order the assassination of Trump and so long as 34 Senators voted to keep him in office no charges could be brought. Is that your contention?

That is what Trump is preparing to argue.

 

[SavannahMann]

That is what Trump is preparing to argue.

Do you believe that is in keeping with the intent of the Founders? And are you prepared for the fallout if the Supreme Court finds in his favor? You are essentially saying the President can be as lawless as he wishes, restrained only by his own insane desires, as long as he holds some sway over at least 34 Senators.

 

[Delldude]

Do you believe that is in keeping with the intent of the Founders? And are you prepared for the fallout if the Supreme Court finds in his favor? You are essentially saying the President can be as lawless as he wishes, restrained only by his own insane desires, as long as he holds some sway over at least 34 Senators.

Doesn't matter what I believe, what matters is what the courts rule and how they opine on it.

 

[SavannahMann]

Doesn't matter what I believe, what matters is what the courts rule and how they opine on it.

I can not see the Court, even the current court, ruling that any action is perfectly legal if the President does it.

I do notice something else though. Suddenly you appear a lot less certain than you did a short while ago.

Good read on what may be in store for the courts.

Trump is arguing that presidents, even after their term is over, are absolutely immune from criminal prosecutions arising out of their acts in office.

Thursday afternoon in a Washington, D.C., federal court, former President Donald Trump filed a motion to dismiss the case pending against him there for his alleged actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election. The motion cites presidential immunity as a ground to dismiss the case in its entirety.

The motion persuasively argues that the D.C. case should be dismissed, and if past practice is any guide all proceedings could and should be stayed while this issue is litigated fully, all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary. Notably, this same reasoning should apply to the ongoing Georgia prosecution as well. A number of legal commentators have anticipated this move and have stated from the outset that presidential immunity should be an absolute bar to the prosecution of Trump for his alleged acts in office that underlie the federal prosecution in D.C.
________________________________
In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity from civil liability for acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. In short, you cannot sue a former president personally because his official acts harmed you. This is an unquestioned Supreme Court precedent, based on very serious, core separation of powers concerns.

If a president were susceptible to civil suit for his official acts, the court held that this would “raise unique risks to the functioning of government” in light of the “singular importance of the President’s duties.” The purpose of presidential immunity, in the Fitzgerald court’s view, is to prevent concerns about being sued clouding the president’s judgment and crippling his ability to act. Presidents need to be able to discharge their duties to the best of their abilities without having to worry about being hauled into court when their terms expire.
__________________________________
First, it is very important to note that in the context of assessing immunity, the motive of a president is irrelevant. Why the president did something is immaterial; the question is what the president is alleged to have done and whether those acts were within this very broad outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. And because the scope of presidential authority and of presidential responsibilities is so vast, the catchment of presidential immunity is similarly expansive.

When you actually review the alleged acts that underlie the D.C. indictment, my view is that each and every one clearly falls within the outer perimeter of President Trump’s official responsibilities.
__________________________________
Lastly, one final note on timing: Any denial of this motion to dismiss, or any similar motion in Georgia, is likely immediately appealable, as is the case in where congressional legislative immunity is implicated. This means, depending on how long it takes Judge Chutkan to rule, this issue could be before the D.C. Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court before long.

In the meantime, an immunity argument like this one compels a stay of all proceedings, as would be the case in almost any action where immunity forms a potential basis for the avoidance of trial.

4 Things To Know About Trump's Presidential Immunity Defense

The courts haven't yet decided......and if Chutakan says no.......heading for the 6-3 crew.

You appeared pretty certain before. I believe you even mentioned it would be a Leftwing Trigger. What happened to that certainty? Did you finally consider the issue beyond what it might mean for Trump?

 

[Delldude]

You appeared pretty certain before. I believe you even mentioned it would be a Leftwing Trigger. What happened to that certainty? Did you finally consider the issue beyond what it might mean for Trump?

What do you think the left will do if Trump got a favorable ruling from SCOTUS and charges in several cases dismissed?
Your 'example' would never come to pass.......that should be your certainty.
I'm still with the good read....

 

[Crepitus]

“The Impeachment Clauses provide that the President may be charged by indictment only in cases where the President has been impeached and convicted by trial in the Senate,” the lawyers wrote according to ABC News. “Here, President Trump was acquitted by the Senate for the same course of conduct… The Special Counsel cannot second-guess the judgment of the duly elected United States Senate.”

Trump is innocent. Jack Smith is in over his head. Presidential Immunity is the key.

JUST IN: Trump Files Motion to Dismiss Jack Smith's DC Jan 6 Case, Citing 'Presidential Immunity' | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

President Trump on Thursday moved to dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith’s DC case, citing ‘presidential immunity.’ Last month Trump was hit with 4 counts in Jack Smith’s January 6 case up in DC: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

You do know he's already tried that several times and been shut down every time, right?

 

[SavannahMann]

What do you think the left will do if Trump got a favorable ruling from SCOTUS and charges in several cases dismissed?
Your 'example' would never come to pass.......that should be your certainty.
I'm still with the good read....

Why wouldn’t it come to pass? The Supreme Court would in your scenario make the President a King. It is said that Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. The President would only need to keep 34 Senators in line by hook or crook.

I mean what is to stop the President? Why not kill the six conservative Supreme Court Justices? Just get rid of them and name their replacements.

That is what is wrong with the claim being made. If it is true, if it is accurate, there is nothing preventing the President from doing anything he wanted. We would then be a banana republic. Every President who left office would have to leave the country and his security behind. All our former Presidents, if any ever left office, would be in Monaco with the other dictators.

 

[Delldude]

Why wouldn’t it come to pass? The Supreme Court would in your scenario make the President a King.

The point of Trump's argument is He was doing things within the realm of His presidential duties that others are conflating and attempting to convict Him for.
I'm not aware He popped someone on 5th avenue, at least not yet.

That is what is wrong with the claim being made. If it is true, if it is accurate, there is nothing preventing the President from doing anything he wanted.

That is why we have two houses with impeachment and conviction options. You know, checks and balances.

We would then be a banana republic.

Sure as hell looking like we been there for some time.

Why not kill the six conservative Supreme Court Justices?

Your radical left has contemplated that.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Jack Smith is a classless, corrupt, politically biased lowlife that is using this bogus prosecution to prevent Trump from being elected President. It's nothing more than election tampering, as are the other cases against Trump. So they'll all put on their make-believe robes and do their best to destroy Trump's campaign because it scares them to think Trump is capable of restoring America to greatness. They don't want that because they don't like the USA. Fuck these criminal prosecutions. MAGA

Bagahaha! MAGA tears are yummy

 

[Delldude]

Bagahaha! MAGA tears are yummy

He's leading Biden in seven swing states...........said He will govern from a jail cell if need be.

 

[SavannahMann]

Your radical left has contemplated that.

If we are being honest. Radicals from both ends have contemplated that. Lest we forget the Anti-Abortion folks were notorious for putting out lists of people enabling abortion.

The argument that Trump is making is fundamentally flawed. Presidential Immunity ends when their term as President does.

The alternative view is so horrifying it doesn’t deserve serious contemplation.