Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court To Rule Quickly Whether Trump Can Be Prosecuted

[L.K.Eder]

The fact that you think he needs imnunity is funny. You do realize that he ALSO has a 1st Amendment right to say whatever he wants.

fucktard. it is team trump that claims immunity. delete your account.

 

[Mac1958]

I've got brass ball the size of canon balls thanks for asking

Are you asking?

 

[Robert W]

Trump is worth billions, he has a PAC to pay his legal bills with $200 million in it.

Trump can hire more than enough lawyers to prepare his defense in just months. Not years.

I don't think or I am not sure that the PAC can pay these types of bills.

Trump is not ordinary and can easily rake up as money as needed to whip the Feds in charge whom are the Democrats.

 

[Robert W]

Im mad because you morons are too stupid to have any idea how stupid you sound.

Some person rang the gong and this is all Democrats can do now. They want to screw up the forum.

 

[bendog]

It would have cause a rather important change to the law if an ex-potus could not be tried and convicted of felonies he committed while potus. Or at least since Nixon, I thought most of us thought that because our judiciary has always been non-partisan

 

[Marener]

Some person rang the gong and this is all Democrats can do now. They want to screw up the forum.

I’ve been doing an extensive amount of remedial government education for you flunkies including pointing out there is no constitutional provision for presidential immunity

 

[Robert W]

It would have cause a rather important change to the law if an ex-potus could not be tried and convicted of felonies he committed while potus. Or at least since Nixon, I thought most of us thought that because our judiciary has always been non-partisan

Prosecutor Smith is extremely confused.

 

[Robert W]

I’ve been doing an extensive amount of remedial government education for you flunkies including pointing out there is no constitutional provision for presidential immunity

I have even actually quoted the Constitution and it is very easy to understand. For Crimes as president, the house impeaches and the Senate convicts. The Senate refused two times to convict Trump. You must be as confused as is Jack Smith the lawyer.

 

[Marener]

I have even actually quoted the Constitution and it is very easy to understand. For Crimes as president, the house impeaches and the Senate convicts. The Senate refused two times to convict Trump. You must be as confused as is Jack Smith the lawyer.

That’s the procedure for removing the president.

He’s not the president. We don’t need to remove him.

No one is confused. You’re just being evasive because nothing in the constitution says the president has any immunity.

 

[Frankenstein]

Are you asking?

"What disagreements do you have with liberals, Mac?"

 

[Robert W]

That’s the procedure for removing the president.

He’s not the president. We don’t need to remove him.

No one is confused. You’re just being evasive because nothing in the constitution says the president has any immunity.

His acts happened when he was president. Why don't you understand the constitution? I know you are as confused as is Jack Smith who is a lawyer and so confused he went begging to the Supreme Court.

 

[Mac1958]

Frankenstein, very interesting that you won't actually type it yourself. That's okay. I'll take that as a "yes".

Great.

There are certainly more, but you can start here, from my sig, post 2: Where does Mac1958 actually stand on the issues?

Then, you'll have to find a way to spin or dismiss or deny or make some story up about how those aren't really my positions.

In other words, you'll have to lie. So make it a good one, Trumpster.

 

[Marener]

His acts happened when he was president. Why don't you understand the constitution? I know you are as confused as is Jack Smith who is a lawyer and so confused he went begging to the Supreme Court.

So what if the acts happened when he was president?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to take up and rule quickly on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results.

Smith made his request for the court to act with unusual speed to prevent any delays that could push back the trial of the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner, currently set to begin on March 4, until after next year’s presidential election.

A federal judge ruled the case could go forward, but Trump signaled he would ask the federal appeals court in Washington to reverse that outcome. Smith is attempting to bypass the appeals court, the usual next step in the process, and have the Supreme Court take up the matter directly.

More at the link below...

SPECIAL COUNSEL PUSHES SCOTUS FOR SPEEDY TRUMP RULING

Wise move by Special Counsel Jack Smith to get speedy SCOTUS ruling. What do you think>

Haha, Smith eats Trump's lunch.

Again.

This is what it looks like, when a little league team plays an MLB team.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is not about double Jeopardy.

Lets try this about Biden to help you get it.

Today he can't be charged since he is president. The sole remedy as president is to be removed from office. Then he can be tried for acts as a civilian.
Say as president Trump murdered a person. Once impeached and convicted, then he can be tried for murder. Trump however committed no crimes at all. Nothing even to be impeached for. They tried that as you must recall.

I am not discussing if Impeach is criminal.

Trump has been indicted for crimes upon probable cause.

The determination of guilt or not, well, that is what the trial is for. Saying "Trump however committed no crimes at all." is premature. The trail will be where that is determined.

WW

 

[Robert W]

Trump has been indicted for crimes upon probable cause.

The determination of guilt or not, well, that is what the trial is for. Saying "Trump however committed no crimes at all." is premature. The trail will be where that is determined.

WW

I find it very amazing so many Democrats are full of certainty

So what if the acts happened when he was president?

and yet the lawyer prosecuting Trump is in the Supreme Court so confused he is begging them to explain it to him.

 

[bendog]

I have even actually quoted the Constitution and it is very easy to understand. For Crimes as president, the house impeaches and the Senate convicts. The Senate refused two times to convict Trump. You must be as confused as is Jack Smith the lawyer.

I'm sure you know why Ford pardoned Nixon and possibly lost the 1976 presidential election as a result.

 

[bodecea]

Why is it a "wise move?"

Getting the decision over with... precludes being used later for an appeal.

 

[Marener]

and yet the lawyer prosecuting Trump is in the Supreme Court so confused he is begging them to explain it to him.

What an absurd and self-serving interpretation of what is happening.

There’s no confusion.

 

[Robert W]

I'm sure you know why Ford pardoned Nixon and possibly lost the 1976 presidential election as a result.

That is possible that Ford lost over that. Don't forget who picked Ford.