Immunity puzzle

[AccessBlaster]

I find it disturbing that those watching CNN were believing the Russia collusion tripe that went on 24/7 for years. And look at what Biden says about bringing the country together. What he has done has made it more divided than it ever was, post civil-war.

Yeah, they conveniently forget that.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Orange Hitler

That's a good one

 

[Jon]

We are at war on the forums. Instead of a white surrender flag, we will be waving an old Microsoft Access 2.0 box from the trenches to show we are on the same side, almost!

 

[Steve R.]

Jack Smith's attempt to wrongfully skip the normal appeal process has been shot-down. All this hyperbolic theater is about the Biden administration using the power-of-the-state to subvert recognized historic immunities to unjustly persecute Trump

Supreme Court declines to issue expedited ruling on Trump immunity case

The Supreme Court has declined to fast-track a case regarding whether former President Donald Trump has absolute immunity from alleged crimes committed while he was in office.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Steve R.]

Trump offers defense of presidential immunity, cites Obama civilian drone deaths: 'He meant well'

Former President Trump said rescinding presidential immunity could endanger the ability for presidents to act decisively in urgent times on "Hannity."

www.foxnews.com

"I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about [how] any president has to have immunity, because if you take immunity away from the president, it's so important, you will have you have a president that's not going to be able to do anything," he said on "Hannity."

"[W]hen he leaves office… the opposing party will indict the president for doing something that should have been good," he said, pointing to reports of mistakes or misfires made by his predecessor trying to eradicate terrorists.

The article above highlights that the Democrats in their preposterous religious fanaticism to crucify Trump, by any means (legal or illegal) are establishing precedents were they may, sometime in the future, be charged under those very legal and illegal theories that they are establishing. Democrats, in their demented desire for immediate "gratification" don't seem to comprehend that the (razor) pendulum can swing towards them to figuratively "cut off their heads".

The Biden administration has violated US immigration laws. Seemingly, the Democrats by attempting to abolish "immunity" would open-up the potential that a president could be charged for the crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the US. One such crime would be the murder of a US citizen in the US by an illegal immigrant.

Then there is also a question of $$$$ costs. Each illegal immigrants costs US citizens (tax) money to provide services such as food, clothing, travel, healthcare, education, etc. If immunity were not to exist, then the president, in this case Biden, would be personally liable for those costs.

Crimes committed by illegal immigrants surged in 2021 after declining in previous years

The number of crimes committed by illegal immigrants surged during fiscal year 2021, including a 1,900% increase in murders and a 400% increase in assaults and domestic violence.

www.foxnews.com

Denver hospital nears crisis after illegal immigrants, homeless, others racked up $136M in unpaid care in 2023 alone | Blaze Media

Denver Health, the largest "safety net" hospital in Colorado, is nearing a crisis after rising numbers of illegal immigrants and homeless people are racking up hefty health care bills that they have little or no ability to pay.Since President Joe Biden took office and the southern border has...

www.theblaze.com

Bullet point summary of established historical immunities that the Democrats are attempting to invalidate for the short term objective of getting Trump, by any means, that potentially could haunt the Democrats in the future.

• Executive Privilege
• Attorney Client Privileged Communications
• Presidential Immunity

 

[The_Doc_Man]

We are at war on the forums. Instead of a white surrender flag, we will be waving an old Microsoft Access 2.0 box from the trenches to show we are on the same side, almost!

The difficulty of that "white flag" method is that I ordered and received my Office 2021 kit via online purchase and download. No box to wave, and the only other thing I have, a 2008 Microsoft MVP certificate, isn't that clear from a distance.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The latest interesting shot is one part of a SCOTUS case on the "immunity" question that is trying to show that Jack Smith has no standing to prosecute in the first place. The "special prosecutor" status (by statute, not by U.S. Constitution) requires appointment by POTUS but THEN requires approval by Congress. Neither of those steps occurred. Without "special prosecutor" status, Smith has to be considered as an assistant to the AG, Merrick Garland. But in that case, the language of the various actions would have to be different than it actually has been. In essence, Smith is an illegal actor in this drama, not properly certified for the role he is playing. Not saying anything about his law degree; not saying "unqualified" but rather "uncertified by due process."

I should point out that I can't at the moment find the article because I read it several days ago and it has dropped off my browsing history after a cleanup. However, I read that within the last few days so it is relatively current.

 

[Cotswold]

I thought that the rules were; politicians and the police are immune from everything and anything.
Those rules apply equally, if a democracy or a dictatorship.

 

[moke123]

The latest interesting shot is one part of a SCOTUS case on the "immunity" question that is trying to show that Jack Smith has no standing to prosecute in the first place. The "special prosecutor" status (by statute, not by U.S. Constitution) requires appointment by POTUS but THEN requires approval by Congress. Neither of those steps occurred. Without "special prosecutor" status, Smith has to be considered as an assistant to the AG, Merrick Garland. But in that case, the language of the various actions would have to be different than it actually has been. In essence, Smith is an illegal actor in this drama, not properly certified for the role he is playing. Not saying anything about his law degree; not saying "unqualified" but rather "uncertified by due process."

I should point out that I can't at the moment find the article because I read it several days ago and it has dropped off my browsing history after a cleanup. However, I read that within the last few days so it is relatively current.

That was an amicus brief filed by Ed Meese and the heritage foundation last year.

Interesting, looking at Smith's background I saw he was the prosecutor on a high profile case (national news) I was involved in years ago.

 

[Steve R.]

I thought that the rules were; politicians and the police are immune from everything and anything.
Those rules apply equally, if a democracy or a dictatorship.

The Biden administration contorts the "law" as if the US were a banana republic.
The "law" is maliciously twisted to take-out political opponents.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Interesting, looking at Smith's background I saw he was the prosecutor on a high profile case (national news) I was involved in years ago.

Did he win?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm not question his legal education or board certification. The specific question has to do with statutory requirements to become a "special prosecutor" vs. just being an assistant to the AGOTUS.

 

[moke123]

Did he win?

like his current case, it was one you couldn't lose.

Sentenced to 30 years and released in 2023.

 

[Steve R.]

Jack Smith's special counsel status is unconstitutional, former attorney general tells SCOTUS

One of the legal experts who joined the former attorney general previously wrote an op-ed in The New York Times calling for Trump to be convicted in the Senate after Jan. 6.

justthenews.com

Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese and top constitutional law scholars are asking the Supreme Court to reject special counsel Jack Smith's petition in the case against former President Donald Trump because they say Smith's appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional to begin with.

Smith lacked the authority to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the case, according to the 32-page brief written by Meese, Boston University Associate Law School Dean Gary Lawson and Northwestern University Law School Professor Steven Calabresi.

DC appeals court to review Jack Smith's 'unconstitutional' appointment in Trump case

Federal court to consider arguments made by Reagan-era Attorney General Ed Meese over Jack Smith's "unconstitutional" appointment as special counsel in the case against former President Donald Trump.

www.foxnews.com

This issue has been lurking in the background for a while. Apparently there have been no recent updates. Should the Court accept that Smith was illegally appointed, it would seem that the case against Trump would be dismissed.

 

[AccessBlaster]

like his current case, it was one you couldn't lose.

Good luck with ALL the appeals. Once the adults (SCOUS) get in the room most if not ALL these fabricobbled charges will be dropped or heavily modified.

 

[Steve R.]

Lawfare is fizzling. Jack Smith's malicious persecution of Trump just crashed!

Judge grants Jack Smith request to dismiss Jan. 6 charges against Trump, appeal dropped in Florida docs case

The federal case against President-elect Donald Trump, which stemmed from Smith's investigation into the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach, was dismissed on Monday.

www.foxnews.com

A judge has dropped the charges against President-elect Donald Trump in the D.C. case against him, following a request that Special Counsel Jack Smith made on Monday

Smith also filed a motion to drop his appeal in his classified records case against Trump – a case that was tossed in July by federal Judge Aileen Cannon. Cannon ruled Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel.

Smith is expected to resign as special counsel before Trump takes office.

Jack Smith Surrenders: Ends Florida Prosecution Against Trump in Triumph for President-Elect

Special Counsel Jack Smith is winding down both federal criminal cases he brought against President-elect Donald Trump before they go to trial.

www.breitbart.com

Special Counsel Jack Smith is winding down both federal criminal cases he brought against President-elect Donald Trump before they go to trial.

Taken together, the moves mark the end of the federal prosecutions against the president-elect, leaving two remaining cases at the state level in Georgia and New York.

The decisions by Smith and the DOJ will also have an impact in the New York business records case against Trump. Judge Juan Merchan has granted Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove a December 2 deadline to file a motion to dismiss the case.

Hopefully, Merchan will perceive that lawfare is a mischaracterization of the rule of law and will dismiss this highly flawed case against Trump.

FYI: There was a previous lawfare case against Trump, which the Supreme Court tossed, See below. The cases above are the dying spasms of those with TDS to "get trump", which also happens to be the title of a prescient book written by Alan Dershowitz that summarized this whole lawfare debacle. Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law.

14th Amendment Supreme Court Brief

Below is the link to a Brief filed with the Supreme Court explaining the history of the amandment, It's only 35 pages. It is well worth the read. It was written by Constitutional scholors. It should be noted that other briefs, many written by conservatives, come to the same conclusion...

www.access-programmers.co.uk

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Show me the law, or any ruling, or the part of the constitution that says a president is immune.

The Supreme Court made that ruling. It was all over the newspapers when it happened. Didn't you read them, @jpl458 - or do you only read the progressive liberal rags that promote scandals against the Republicans and whitewash the Democrats?

The ruling actually doesn't give Donald J Trump immunity. That immunity extends in perpetuity to anyone acting as president performing deeds in accordance with the official duties of his office. The implication is that it applies to ANY PRESIDENT.