Valin Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 The Washington Examiner Ashley Oliver and Kaelan Deese April 25, 2024 The Supreme Court on Thursday appeared open to a middle-ground approach to a bid by former President Donald Trump to invoke presidential immunity to shake off his criminal charges. The nine justices asked Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, pointed questions about whether presidents had “absolute immunity” from prosecution as they weighed Trump’s argument that he was protected under the Constitution from being charged for his actions after the 2020 election. Arguing on behalf of special counsel Jack Smith was veteran litigant Michael Dreeben. Trump contends former presidents should have immunity from charges over actions they took in office and has said that Congress must secure a conviction during the impeachment process in order for any former president to face criminal charges for the same underlying conduct in a court of law. So far, two lower federal courts have disagreed with that legal argument. The Supreme Court justices ultimately appeared mixed on the outcome. They clearly did not want to dismiss the case against Trump outright based on his sweeping theory of presidential immunity. But several justices appeared skeptical of how the special counsel has framed the case. (Snip) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geee Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 ‘Rule for the Ages:’ Trump finds sympathy among justices for some immunity, path for legal delay Conservative justices express unease over letting future presidents prosecute their ex-rivals. Liberal justices contend that without immunity, future Presidents might be more inclined to obey the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geee Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Sotomayor Hijacks Trump Immunity Hearing To Push Democrats’ Debunked ‘Fake Electors’ Smear Contrary to Sotomayor’s web of dishonesty, the naming of contingent Republican electors during the 2020 election was neither unprecedented nor unlawful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted April 26 Author Share Posted April 26 27 minutes ago, Geee said: Sotomayor Hijacks Trump Immunity Hearing To Push Democrats’ Debunked ‘Fake Electors’ Smear Contrary to Sotomayor’s web of dishonesty, the naming of contingent Republican electors during the 2020 election was neither unprecedented nor unlawful. Of Course! 20+ years from now Democrats will still be talking about this. See Republicans (Hoover) Caused The Great Depression, Watergate, George W Bush "Bush Lied People Died!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geee Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Immunity for Me but Not for Thee Whether Presidential Immunity is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing Shouldn’t Depend Upon Party Affiliation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geee Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 SCOTUS Agrees Presidents Do Have Immunity From Criminal Prosecutions, But To What Degree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted April 27 Author Share Posted April 27 1 hour ago, Geee said: SCOTUS Agrees Presidents Do Have Immunity From Criminal Prosecutions, But To What Degree? Quote Technically, the question before the court is: Whether and, if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office? 1. You mean like accepting bribes? 2. We should be very VERY careful before going down That road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now