Smith trying to get Trump convicted before election, says Attorney Jonathan Turley

[1miseryindex]

Supreme Court: Trump must respond to special counsel’s presidential immunity petition before Christmas

The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite this appeal and asked Trump’s lawyers to respond to the motion by next Wednesday December 20

www.foxnews.com

This blows me away

But why should it? I should be used to the childish, un-American, demonic, anti-Christ BS of the left.


from site

If the justices get involved, they would have an opportunity to rule for the first time on whether ex-presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president.

Elsewhere from site:

Trump lawyers, meanwhile, have said he cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president — a claim that prosecutors have vigorously rejected.

Comment:

It says "Trump cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president."

isn't it part of a president's duties to uphold the Constitution?

Election laws were violated in the last election, laws written in the US Constitution which states that the state legislators have control over election places, times and procedures. Yet, last time, governors and others usurped the state legislatures.

 

[pknopp]

And to think he gets paid a lot of money to note the obvious.

 

[1miseryindex]

And to think he gets paid a lot of money to note the obvious.

i guess that's all you read was the title

figures

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Let's assume that Johnathan Turley is correct.

What's the problem?

 

[Nostra]

And to think he gets paid a lot of money to note the obvious.

Why should an election factor into the normal judicial process, Vermin?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Why should an election factor into the normal judicial process, Vermin?

I guess that depends on whether an election might subsequently factor into the normal judicial process.

 

[pknopp]

i guess that's all you read was the title

figures

I heard what he said earlier.

 

[pknopp]

Why should an election factor into the normal judicial process, Vermin?

I didn't say it should. Did I?

 

[Marener]

I didn't say it should. Did I?

Trump already claimed it should when he asked for a delay in the trial to accommodate his campaign.

 

[pknopp]

Trump already claimed it should when he asked for a delay in the trial to accommodate his campaign.

O.K. I really don't give a flying fig either.

 

[1miseryindex]

No liberal ever reacts to that little factoid mentioned by yours truly in OP

namely that the US Constitution says that it is the state legislatures that have control over election places, laws, rules and procedures, yet governors and others usurped that role in the last election, thereby violating the US Constitution they swore to uphold.

IMO

case freaking closed

The left is saying in effect that Trump (or any president) should not have an interest in trying to prevent the above from happening or doing anything to ameliorate the situation when it does happen-- not only in 2020 but ever again.

What a bunch of sicko, un-American, criminal-minded *&^%$

FASCISTS

And the taxpayers have to fund these creeps

 

[Nostra]

I guess that depends on whether an election might subsequently factor into the normal judicial process.

 

[Arlette]

Supreme Court: Trump must respond to special counsel’s presidential immunity petition before Christmas

The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite this appeal and asked Trump’s lawyers to respond to the motion by next Wednesday December 20

www.foxnews.com

This blows me away

But why should it? I should be used to the childish, un-American, demonic, anti-Christ BS of the left.


from site

If the justices get involved, they would have an opportunity to rule for the first time on whether ex-presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president.

Elsewhere from site:

Trump lawyers, meanwhile, have said he cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president — a claim that prosecutors have vigorously rejected.

Comment:

It says "Trump cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president."

isn't it part of a president's duties to uphold the Constitution?

Election laws were violated in the last election, laws written in the US Constitution which states that the state legislators have control over election places, times and procedures. Yet, last time, governors and others usurped the state legislatures.

God has forsaken Donald Trump.

 

[Nostra]

I didn't say it should. Did I?

So you agree Smith is a political hack.

Git it.

 

[Esdraelon]

If these folks are allowed to incarcerate the leading opposition candidate for POTUS, America is over. The chances are actually quite good that if after everything else these Marxists have done or attempted, they actually convict him and put him in prison, he's apt to win by a landslide. What then?

 

[Moonglow]

Supreme Court: Trump must respond to special counsel’s presidential immunity petition before Christmas

The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite this appeal and asked Trump’s lawyers to respond to the motion by next Wednesday December 20

www.foxnews.com

This blows me away

But why should it? I should be used to the childish, un-American, demonic, anti-Christ BS of the left.


from site

If the justices get involved, they would have an opportunity to rule for the first time on whether ex-presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president.

Elsewhere from site:

Trump lawyers, meanwhile, have said he cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president — a claim that prosecutors have vigorously rejected.

Comment:

It says "Trump cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president."

isn't it part of a president's duties to uphold the Constitution?

Election laws were violated in the last election, laws written in the US Constitution which states that the state legislators have control over election places, times and procedures. Yet, last time, governors and others usurped the state legislatures.

Which laws in the Constitution were violated in the last election?

 

[Marener]

No liberal ever reacts to that little factoid mentioned by yours truly in OP

namely that the US Constitution says that it is the state legislatures that have control over election places, laws, rules and procedures, yet governors and others usurped that role in the last election, thereby violating the US Constitution they swore to uphold.

IMO

case freaking closed

The Supreme Court does not agree with your interpretation of the electors clause.

So it’s not a fact. It’s an opinion and an irrelevant one.

 

[Crepitus]

Supreme Court: Trump must respond to special counsel’s presidential immunity petition before Christmas

The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite this appeal and asked Trump’s lawyers to respond to the motion by next Wednesday December 20

www.foxnews.com

This blows me away

But why should it? I should be used to the childish, un-American, demonic, anti-Christ BS of the left.


from site

If the justices get involved, they would have an opportunity to rule for the first time on whether ex-presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president.

Elsewhere from site:

Trump lawyers, meanwhile, have said he cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president — a claim that prosecutors have vigorously rejected.

Comment:

It says "Trump cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president."

isn't it part of a president's duties to uphold the Constitution?

Election laws were violated in the last election, laws written in the US Constitution which states that the state legislators have control over election places, times and procedures. Yet, last time, governors and others usurped the state legislatures.

What Happened to Jonathan Turley, Really?

Turley’s midterm quandary—how to boost the poor performance by the party he has loyally served as academically-credentialed propagandist—is unenviable.

slate.com

Turley is off his rocker.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Supreme Court: Trump must respond to special counsel’s presidential immunity petition before Christmas

The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite this appeal and asked Trump’s lawyers to respond to the motion by next Wednesday December 20

www.foxnews.com

This blows me away

But why should it? I should be used to the childish, un-American, demonic, anti-Christ BS of the left.

No shit? Did turley just figure this out now?

Lol. What a clown.

from site

If the justices get involved, they would have an opportunity to rule for the first time on whether ex-presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president.

Do you really believe that former presidents are immune from prosecution? Lol. Banana republic much?

Does that mean Biden would be able to walk up to Trump and shoot him in the face and there is nothing anyone can do? Ever?

Lol.

Elsewhere from site:

Trump lawyers, meanwhile, have said he cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president — a claim that prosecutors have vigorously rejected.

Comment:

It says "Trump cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president."

Violating the law is not an official duty of the president.

isn't it part of a president's duties to uphold the Constitution?

Yes. Trump is not charged with supporting the constitution.

Election laws were violated in the last election, laws written in the US Constitution which states that the state legislators have control over election places, times and procedures. Yet, last time, governors and others usurped the state legislatures.

If election laws were broken then charge those people. It doesn't give someone else permission to break the law.

 

[Moonglow]

If a president is immune how can they be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?