BlueGin
Diamond Member
- Jul 10, 2004
- 24,719
- 17,175
- 1,405
Since when do lefties not adhere to strict interpretations ?
Answer? When lefties are involved.
JUST IN: Trump Files Motion to Dismiss Jack Smith’s DC Jan 6 Case, Citing ‘Presidential Immunity’
- Thread starter MAGA Macho Man
- Start date
Answer? When lefties are involved.
Clipper
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2018
- 18,522
- 12,331
- 1,290
General Bonespurs being impeached in Congress has no bearing whatsoever on criminal charges, mouth breather.“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
Whover filed that motion must have gotten their law degree from Trump Fake University.
Clipper
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2018
- 18,522
- 12,331
- 1,290
Mitch forgot to mention that on Jan.6 Trump came, he saw, he jizzed.
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 57,376
- 17,026
- 2,180
He said that right after he and the Senate acquitted the Squealer.
dudmuck
Diamond Member
wamose
Diamond Member
These assholes are laughing while they cause our country to suffer. They are some of the worst ever. This is a picture of two stupid bookends holding up two compulsive liars and thieves.
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
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
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 34,016
- 26,856
- 2,905
Inseparable.....
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 132,094
- 76,101
- 2,605
The crimes Trump is being charged with by Jack Smith are not the same crimes he was impeached for.
The presidential immunity issue will be a left wing trigger.....for sure.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 132,094
- 76,101
- 2,605
No such thing. Sorry!
The courts haven't yet decided......and if Chutakan says no.......heading for the 6-3 crew.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 132,094
- 76,101
- 2,605
Good luck with that.
BrokeLoser
Diamond Member
g5000 Dont Taz Me Bro and the rest of the mentally ill TDS’ers will go pee-pee in their panties when Trump walks yet again….Because ‘they got him this time’ and this time they really really really really mean it!
SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,819
- 365
I’m curious. Perhaps someone can help me understand. Where exactly did this notion of overreaching and never ending Presidential Immunity come from?
The reason I ask is during a Civics class we discussed the Pardon from President Ford for former President Richard Nixon.
en.m.wikipedia.org
The reason the Pardon was needed is that by destroying the tapes, and ordering people to lie, Nixon had committed the crime of Obstruction of Justice. Now why if the President has automatic and never ending immunity would that be necessary?
The second thing that comes to mind is the Clinton Plea Deal that ended any chance of an indictment.
Why would that be necessary. If Clinton was immune for all time because he had been President, then signing that deal would be catastrophically stupid wouldn’t it?
So why would Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton, both of whom were Presidents at the time think that Prosecution of a Former President was legal and constitutional?
Now take a moment and think, ask yourself this. Are you really sure you wish to make this claim? That Presidents, no matter what they do, in office or not, are immune from Prosecution? Are you really sure that is a claim you want to assert?
Instead of asking yourself if this is a good way to get Trump out of trouble. Ask yourself if this is really the legal standard you want established for President Biden, or perhaps some future Democrat. Say Harris or someone even worse.
Do you really want that standard? Where a Democrat could order the execution of Conservative Protestors and have it labeled a perfectly legal action because Presidents are above the law? Or Biden could use Air Force One to conduct human trafficking and nothing could be done because presidential orders are absolute and perfectly legal.
Is this really the argument you are making?
The reason I ask is during a Civics class we discussed the Pardon from President Ford for former President Richard Nixon.
Pardon of Richard Nixon - Wikipedia
The reason the Pardon was needed is that by destroying the tapes, and ordering people to lie, Nixon had committed the crime of Obstruction of Justice. Now why if the President has automatic and never ending immunity would that be necessary?
The second thing that comes to mind is the Clinton Plea Deal that ended any chance of an indictment.
Why would that be necessary. If Clinton was immune for all time because he had been President, then signing that deal would be catastrophically stupid wouldn’t it?
So why would Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton, both of whom were Presidents at the time think that Prosecution of a Former President was legal and constitutional?
Now take a moment and think, ask yourself this. Are you really sure you wish to make this claim? That Presidents, no matter what they do, in office or not, are immune from Prosecution? Are you really sure that is a claim you want to assert?
Instead of asking yourself if this is a good way to get Trump out of trouble. Ask yourself if this is really the legal standard you want established for President Biden, or perhaps some future Democrat. Say Harris or someone even worse.
Do you really want that standard? Where a Democrat could order the execution of Conservative Protestors and have it labeled a perfectly legal action because Presidents are above the law? Or Biden could use Air Force One to conduct human trafficking and nothing could be done because presidential orders are absolute and perfectly legal.
Is this really the argument you are making?
All Chutakan has to do is say no......
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 132,094
- 76,101
- 2,605
You are completely ignorant of the fact that one of the reasons we rebelled against Britain is because we did not believe in the divine right of kings.All Chutakan has to do is say no......
So brace yourself for an education, rube.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 132,094
- 76,101
- 2,605
Are you being obtuse, or are you actually that stupid?
Presidential immunity does not exist. There is no divine right of kings in the US.
Magnus
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2020
- 13,296
- 10,468
- 2,138
Filed by the same lawyers who forgot to ask for a jury trial? Sure, thing.“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...
Similar threads
New Topics
-
ICE snatches denmark born father at his naturalisation hearing he commited no crimes- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
