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

[SeaMajor7]

The facts are ugly. Trump belongs in prison.

See, there's that STALINIST BULLSHIT right there!

 

[surada]

You fucking demented retarded LIAR, it was part of his speech
"MARCH PEACEFULLY"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After 3 PM. Trump incited his mob for six weeks after he lost the election to get them to fight and take back their country. Lots of them are going to jail while you give Trump a pass.

 

[surada]

See, there's that STALINIST BULLSHIT right there!

Are you an adult?

 

[Smokin' OP]

You fucking demented retarded LIAR, it was part of his speech
"MARCH PEACEFULLY"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Trump cult DID march peacefully, down the road.............then they reached the capitol.
The "Peaceful march" ended.

 

[postman]

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.]

"We Can Utilize Congressional Immunities to Immunize President Trump" - GOP Rep. Gaetz Reveals Plan to Fight Back Against Jack Smith's Abuse (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

GOP Representative Matt Gaetz revealed a plan to fight back against Special Counsel Jack Smith after his latest charges against Trump.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The problem with that theory is that congress can only by grant of immunity prevent those statements in future being used against him. Meaning that DOJ can't use those statements made in congress, against him, or use those statements before congress to gather additional evidence they otherwise would have been unaware of.

 

[postman]

You might want to read the indictment again, []b]Smith admitted there was election fraud in 2020. He just claimed there wasn't enough to effect the outcome.[/b] Do you have any clue how much discovery will be done on just that one statement or how many potential witnesses it may cause? Just the trial prep could go on for a decade. That said, I haven't seen any evidence that Trump was involved in the bogus slates of electors.

..

Recalling a defective election is no different than recalling a defective product. If out of millions of a product sold, they found defects in less than a dozen of them. That doesn't warrant recalling the millions of perfectly safe products currently in use.

 

[BluesLegend]

Hillary conceded the election.

Then claimed for months it was stolen and Trump colluded with Russia to steal it.

 

[Lesh]

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.]

"We Can Utilize Congressional Immunities to Immunize President Trump" - GOP Rep. Gaetz Reveals Plan to Fight Back Against Jack Smith's Abuse (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

GOP Representative Matt Gaetz revealed a plan to fight back against Special Counsel Jack Smith after his latest charges against Trump.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

You really need to stop reading shot like that rag.

Yes the moronic GOP Congress “could” pass something like that (at considerable political peril for themselves) but it would never pass the Senate or be signed by Biden

 

[Independent thinker]

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.]

"We Can Utilize Congressional Immunities to Immunize President Trump" - GOP Rep. Gaetz Reveals Plan to Fight Back Against Jack Smith's Abuse (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

GOP Representative Matt Gaetz revealed a plan to fight back against Special Counsel Jack Smith after his latest charges against Trump.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Doesn't change the fact that Democrats have been saying elections were stolen for decades.

 

[postman]

Then claimed for months it was stolen and Trump colluded with Russia to steal it.

But you gloss over the important part

Hillary conceded the election.

It's no different that the US Civil War (1861-1865) that southeners to this day are still complaining about.

 

[postman]

You really need to stop reading shot like that rag.

Yes the moronic GOP Congress “could” pass something like that (at considerable political peril for themselves) but it would never pass the Senate or be signed by Biden

Even if they did pass it, house and senate, and it was signed into law. It's effect would not be retroactive. The case against Trump, and all the evidence has already been gathered, and ready to turn over in discovery. Nothing congress can do, can invalidate what is already in DOJ hands from independent investigations, totally unrelated to what Trump might confess to under congressional immunity.

 

[postman]

Doesn't change the fact that Democrats have been saying elections were stolen for decades.

Doesn't change the fact that Southeners have been saving the Civil War was stolen for the last three centuries.

 

[bodecea]

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.]

"We Can Utilize Congressional Immunities to Immunize President Trump" - GOP Rep. Gaetz Reveals Plan to Fight Back Against Jack Smith's Abuse (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

GOP Representative Matt Gaetz revealed a plan to fight back against Special Counsel Jack Smith after his latest charges against Trump.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The Gateway Pundit......

 

[bodecea]

I pity you.

Seriously.

Why, he's making money working for The Gateway Pundit.

 

[CowboyTed]

Didnt Hillary say over and over that 2016 was stolen.

She is knowingly lying.

No she didn't...

She said Russia Interfered in the election to aid Trump... She was taking that from a GOP led Senate intelligence report :

Senate panel finds Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election

The report purposely does not come to a final conclusion, as the other reports did, about whether there is enough evidence that Trump’s campaign coordinated or colluded with Russia to sway the election, leaving its findings open to partisan interpretation.

www.pbs.org

Just because your media bubble doesn't tell you dick, doesn't let you walk around ignorant...

Here is the difference:

What Trump said was lies... Trump had 60+ court cases and couldn't prove his case..

What Hillary said was backed by evidence.. You then misquoted her and tried equate the two...
Why? because you know that Trump is guilty and want to drag in a Democrat... Nice try..

 

[Catsnmeters]

Why, he's making money working for The Gateway Pundit.

Quite likely.

 

[bodecea]

Didnt Hillary say over and over that 2016 was stolen.

She is knowingly lying.

No she did not. She con-ceded the very next morning.

 

[bodecea]

Such irony.

Such irony on your part.

 

[bodecea]

You might want to read the indictment again, Smith admitted there was election fraud in 2020. He just claimed there wasn't enough to effect the outcome. Do you have any clue how much discovery will be done on just that one statement or how many potential witnesses it may cause? Just the trial prep could go on for a decade. That said, I haven't seen any evidence that Trump was involved in the bogus slates of electors.

..

"Smith admitted there was election fraud in 2020"................

 

[postman]

Re: Congressional immunity

“We can utilize Congressional immunities to immunize President Trump. 18 U.S. Code § 6002 – 3 – gives any Committee or Subcommittee of the Congress the ability to subpoena a witness, bring them in, and functionally immunize them,” Gaetz said.

Someone needs to consult a lawyer.

717. Transactional Immunity Distinguished

www.justice.gov

Title 18 U.S.C. § 6002 provides use immunity instead of transactional immunity. The difference between transactional and use immunity is that transactional immunity protects the witness from prosecution for the offense or offenses involved, whereas use immunity only protects the witness against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness -- except in a subsequent prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement.

18 U.S. Code § 6002 - Immunity generally

www.law.cornell.edu

... but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, ...