- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Special counsel asks Supreme Court to rule quickly whether Trump can be prosecuted
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:14 pm
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.
A federal judge ruled the case could go forward, but the Republican former president signaled he would ask the federal appeals court in Washington to reverse that outcome.
Smith is attempting to bypass the appeals court. The request filed Monday for the Supreme Court to take up the matter directly reflects Smith’s desire to keep the trial, currently for March 4, on track and to prevent any delays that could push back the case until after next year’s presidential election.
“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” prosecutors wrote.
Underscoring the urgency for prosecutors in securing a quick resolution that can push the case forward, they wrote: “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”
“Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”
LINK
A federal judge ruled the case could go forward, but the Republican former president signaled he would ask the federal appeals court in Washington to reverse that outcome.
Smith is attempting to bypass the appeals court. The request filed Monday for the Supreme Court to take up the matter directly reflects Smith’s desire to keep the trial, currently for March 4, on track and to prevent any delays that could push back the case until after next year’s presidential election.
“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” prosecutors wrote.
Underscoring the urgency for prosecutors in securing a quick resolution that can push the case forward, they wrote: “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”
“Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”
LINK
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:16 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
For once, I agree with Jack Smith.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:18 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
Gee. What’s your hurry, Jack?
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:28 pm to Godfather1
quote:
What’s your hurry, Jack?
I think he's trying his best to give the GOP time to find a new candidate quick.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:31 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
I think he's trying his best to give the GOP time to find a new candidate quick.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:33 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
I think he's trying his best to give the GOP time to find a new candidate quick.
Don't need one
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:35 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
boomerang will a be mutha fricka
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:36 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
think he's trying his best to give the GOP time to find a new candidate quick.
the last time he went to the Supreme Court because he prosecuted a political enemy he got slapped down hard. They should do the same here, but this is Trump, so I could see Robert’s wussing out.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:41 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
I think he's trying his best to give the GOP time to find a new candidate quick.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:42 pm to BBONDS25
What are the chances they tell him to let the Appeal Court process play out first? Is Jack afraid of what they might say?
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:46 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
Hit the road, Jack.
And don’t come back no more…
And don’t come back no more…
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:48 pm to Elblancodiablo
quote:
Don't need one
You will, unless you believe that the justice system in this country will treat Trump fairly.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:51 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
Somewhere out there, SanctimoniousHank is DYING to derail this thread and call you all idiots...
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:52 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
unless you believe that the justice system in this country will treat Trump fairly.
He's gotten FAR better treatment that 99.9% of Americans would in Court.
We would ALL be in jail by now. lol
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:53 pm to JoeHackett
Of course fairly in your mind is acquitting Trump.
I am not sure of the DC case but from what I read on the Miami case I don't see how he avoids a conviction on at least some of the charges. His ego got his arse in trouble there.
The NY civil case is clearly BS to me.
The Atlanta case I am not sure of.
I am not sure of the DC case but from what I read on the Miami case I don't see how he avoids a conviction on at least some of the charges. His ego got his arse in trouble there.
The NY civil case is clearly BS to me.
The Atlanta case I am not sure of.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:54 pm to Godfather1
quote:
Is Jack afraid of what they might say?
Seems unlikely. They know that Trump's best strategy is to delay this as long as possible, hope Trump wins in November and then pardons himself. So Jack is just trying to speed this up by skipping a normal step. Jack has worked out the timing perfectly. Trial date before Super Tuesday, to ensure Trump wins the nomination. Conviction before the convention, sentencing after.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:54 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
I don't understand how the Supreme Court could rule on anything yet.
Trump hasn't been convicted of or charged with insurrection or rebellion!
Am I missing something? (I'm aware of the insane blood lust the dems have to "get Trump")
Also, Smith's record presenting cases to the SCOTUS isn't very good. lol
Trump hasn't been convicted of or charged with insurrection or rebellion!
Am I missing something? (I'm aware of the insane blood lust the dems have to "get Trump")
Also, Smith's record presenting cases to the SCOTUS isn't very good. lol
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 12/11/23 at 12:59 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
He's gotten FAR better treatment that 99.9% of Americans would in Court.
We would ALL be in jail by now. lol
The Biden Crime Family says "potato"....
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:01 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
I don't understand how the Supreme Court could rule on anything yet.
Trump hasn't been convicted of or charged with insurrection or rebellion!
Trump's lawyers have argued that Trump has immunity in this particular case. They moved to dismiss the case and were denied by a Federal District judge. Next they'll appeal to the Circuit court, if they lose, they'll appeal to the Supreme Court. Jack is just trying to skip the Circuit court.
LINK
quote:
Federal judge says Trump does not have absolute immunity, denying bid to dismiss election subversion case
quote:
The federal judge presiding over Donald Trump’s election subversion case in Washington, DC, has refused to dismiss the charges against the former president, saying he does not enjoy absolute immunity for what he said and did after the 2020 election.
“The court cannot conclude that our Constitution cloaks former Presidents with absolute immunity for any federal crimes they committed while in office,” US District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote.
This is an issue that likely must be settled by an appeals courts above Chutkan before Trump’s criminal trial, set for March.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:05 pm to Godfather1
quote:
What are the chances they tell him to let the Appeal Court process play out first?
I don’t think very high. Seems to me that SCOTUS would want to go ahead and put this issue to rest before the election season.
Pretty reasonable honestly. I hope they do go ahead and address it. It’ll end up before SCOTUS regardless of what the DC circuit did anyway.
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 1:08 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News