Renowned attorney comments on new indictment against Trump
- Thread starter forkintheroad7
- Start date
Blaster
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2022
- 32,930
- 37,592
- 2,788
It would take a jar of vasoline to be able to put anything into that dry, smelly hole.
Blaster
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2022
- 32,930
- 37,592
- 2,788
Turley is a Democrat and well respected among his peers.
Very true. He’s however been attacked by the demafasict that took over the dem party, for calling out their assault on democracy
Shareprofit
Platinum Member
- Aug 25, 2021
- 1,409
- 726
- 928
It makes you wonder why Trump bothered. Probably more of the thrill of subjecting an innocent woman to humiliation. It was a power thing for Trump. To think you MAGA approve of that sort of behaviour.
Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 91,040
- 45,541
- 2,615
You might wanna go back to Bush the Lesser and Carl ******* Rove and Don Seigelman
What? Are you trying to make a point? So weird
Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 91,040
- 45,541
- 2,615
You’re not even good at trolling. Hard as you may try
An even weirder post
The Vice President was not taken out of the indictment as a witness because VP Pence was acting as the President of the Senate, and not as VP.....Turley failed to mention that.... that's why he is wrong.
Jonathan Turley: The Supreme Court will have problems with this indictment | Fox News Video
Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley reacts to the special filing a new indictment in the election subversion case against former President Trump on 'Special Report.'www.foxnews.com
I just now heard of this a couple hours ago. Basically, this nut Jack Smith (who was not supposed to be bringing the original case!) re-did the old indictment after the Supreme Ct ruled that presidents have immunity from lawsuits when they are (my words) working in their capacity as a president.
The VP was being the VP and performing his duty as VP when acting as the President of the Senate.
That’s literally the VP’s cosntitutionally mandated jobs
And has nothing what so ever to do with the President's duties.
Sure, what the president does wth the VP certainly might
What a weird post
Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 91,040
- 45,541
- 2,615
You’re as “weird” as JD Couch
I’m not the one suggesting the President and VP talking to one another isn’t part of the presidents official duties
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,813
- 27,545
- 2,820
You're an idiot, but that was hilarious. Well done.
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,813
- 27,545
- 2,820
But after slicing out the portions on the Justice Department, Smith chose to keep the rest of the indictment largely intact—with some adjustments around the edges. Apart from the Court’s assertion that Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department were absolutely immune, the ruling doesn’t reach firm conclusions on how to understand his immunity for other conduct, instead remanding the matter to the district court. So Smith is here making an argument for a broad range of prosecutable conduct, albeit within the boundaries set around him by the Court. Put in more tactical terms, he is betting that he can persuade Judge Chutkan—and eventually at least two of the justices who signed on to the majority opinion—to let him proceed with the rest of the indictment with modest adjustments to emphasize the nonofficial and public nature of the conduct in question.
Consider, for example, Trump’s efforts to bully state officials into overturning the election—like his famous phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger demanding that Raffensperger “find 11,780 votes,” or his berating of Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers to hold a hearing over false claims of election fraud. During oral argument, Trump’s counsel John Sauer suggested that such conversations constituted official acts for which Trump should be immune. Despite several justices’ skepticism toward Sauer’s expansive position, the majority opinion seems open to this view, suggesting that “the President may speak on and discuss such matters with state officials … to encourage them to act in a manner that promotes the President’s view of the public good.” But the Court ultimately doesn’t resolve the question of whether this is immune official conduct one way or another.
Smith could have backed down and edited this material out of the indictment as well, but he chose not to. By leaving it in, largely unchanged, he’s asserting that such actions are unofficial and therefore open to prosecution. It is possible that Smith is planning to make a different argument here that the Supreme Court decision would also invite—that these acts are only presumptively immune and that he can rebut that presumption—but the specific tweaks to the allegation suggest he is planning the former approach.
www.lawfaremedia.org
Basically, the Court left enough ambiguity in its ruling to allow Chutkin to make some determinations on her own. Which leaves an opening for trump to appeal a guilty verdict based on faith his Court will once again come to his aid by ruling whatever determinations she makes as to immunity were not broad enough.
Consider, for example, Trump’s efforts to bully state officials into overturning the election—like his famous phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger demanding that Raffensperger “find 11,780 votes,” or his berating of Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers to hold a hearing over false claims of election fraud. During oral argument, Trump’s counsel John Sauer suggested that such conversations constituted official acts for which Trump should be immune. Despite several justices’ skepticism toward Sauer’s expansive position, the majority opinion seems open to this view, suggesting that “the President may speak on and discuss such matters with state officials … to encourage them to act in a manner that promotes the President’s view of the public good.” But the Court ultimately doesn’t resolve the question of whether this is immune official conduct one way or another.
Smith could have backed down and edited this material out of the indictment as well, but he chose not to. By leaving it in, largely unchanged, he’s asserting that such actions are unofficial and therefore open to prosecution. It is possible that Smith is planning to make a different argument here that the Supreme Court decision would also invite—that these acts are only presumptively immune and that he can rebut that presumption—but the specific tweaks to the allegation suggest he is planning the former approach.
The Superseding Trump Indictment Charts Jack Smith’s Path Forward
Smith has reworked the Jan. 6 case against Trump in light of the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.
www.lawfaremedia.org
Basically, the Court left enough ambiguity in its ruling to allow Chutkin to make some determinations on her own. Which leaves an opening for trump to appeal a guilty verdict based on faith his Court will once again come to his aid by ruling whatever determinations she makes as to immunity were not broad enough.
As expected, You can't refute anything Turley offered so you felt compelled to lash out because your feelings were hurt.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
The war isn't spiraling.... It's not out if control... It's not Armageddon.... UNBUNCH YOUR SOILED PANTIES...- Started by justoffal
- Replies: 1
-
Video: NY Governor Hochul in 2022 tells wealthy to LEAVE NY. Now, 2026, she begs them to return- Started by ColonelAngus
- Replies: 2
