January 6th Hearings
-
Butcher Bob
- Karma Monster
- Has bestowed Karma : 1362 times
- Received Karma : 1013 times
- Posts: 4435
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:18 am
-
Intrinsic
- Advanced Grower
-
Karma Hippie
- Has bestowed Karma : 2191 times
- Received Karma : 1814 times
- Posts: 8220
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am
January 6th Hearings
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. When the walls fell.
The lighter side of trump resorting to crimes after losing the 2020 election
The lighter side of trump resorting to crimes after losing the 2020 election
-
Butcher Bob
- Karma Monster
- Has bestowed Karma : 1362 times
- Received Karma : 1013 times
- Posts: 4435
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:18 am
-
Intrinsic
- Advanced Grower
-
Karma Hippie
- Has bestowed Karma : 2191 times
- Received Karma : 1814 times
- Posts: 8220
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am
January 6th Hearings
Since the lowercourts are now required by Supreme Court to FIRST decide if evidence presented is admissible and not part of the defendants official Duties.
Jack Smith is being compliant to the requirements the Supreme Court. The judge needs this evidence to ensure none of the evidence that's being presented would be inadmissible under the new Supreme Court ruling, yanno the one you laughed at out of context. Jack Smith didn't want to file this. The new Supreme Court decision mandated it for him.
Megyn Kelly was 100% yanking your chain saying
"Jack Smith could not get his case before a jury prior to the election day. So he decided to lay it out in a paper trial."
And you fell for it line hook and sinker. Then repeated it on social media. whatatool
Jack Smith is being compliant to the requirements the Supreme Court. The judge needs this evidence to ensure none of the evidence that's being presented would be inadmissible under the new Supreme Court ruling, yanno the one you laughed at out of context. Jack Smith didn't want to file this. The new Supreme Court decision mandated it for him.
Megyn Kelly was 100% yanking your chain saying
"Jack Smith could not get his case before a jury prior to the election day. So he decided to lay it out in a paper trial."
And you fell for it line hook and sinker. Then repeated it on social media. whatatool
-
Butcher Bob
- Karma Monster
- Has bestowed Karma : 1362 times
- Received Karma : 1013 times
- Posts: 4435
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:18 am
January 6th Hearings
Riiight...
Fun fact: Before Megyn got her law degree, her undergraduate degree was in Poli-Sci.
Remind me what your educational qualifications related to the topic are?
You'll have to forgive me if I put more stock in her opinion than yours.
I bet you get your opinion from MSDNC.
Fun fact: Before Megyn got her law degree, her undergraduate degree was in Poli-Sci.
Remind me what your educational qualifications related to the topic are?
You'll have to forgive me if I put more stock in her opinion than yours.
I bet you get your opinion from MSDNC.
-
Intrinsic
- Advanced Grower
-
Karma Hippie
- Has bestowed Karma : 2191 times
- Received Karma : 1814 times
- Posts: 8220
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am
. If you watch the video Megan Kelly admitted she didn't read the whole brief. She claimed instead she watched 24 other opinions about it.-
Intrinsic
- Advanced Grower
-
Karma Hippie
- Has bestowed Karma : 2191 times
- Received Karma : 1814 times
- Posts: 8220
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am
January 6th Hearings
You talking about the precident to now show that they're not official acts of Duties to be a prosecuted as crimes? This one:
SAN JOSE, CA – The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Trump v. United States on Monday, July 1, 2024 providing broad presidential immunity
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATE
Syllabus TRUMP v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 23–939. Argued April 25, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024
...
Download as PDF
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... vHOx3vdtxI
SAN JOSE, CA – The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Trump v. United States on Monday, July 1, 2024 providing broad presidential immunity
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATE
Syllabus TRUMP v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 23–939. Argued April 25, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024
...
Download as PDF
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... vHOx3vdtxI
-
Intrinsic
- Advanced Grower
-
Karma Hippie
- Has bestowed Karma : 2191 times
- Received Karma : 1814 times
- Posts: 8220
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am
January 6th Hearings
How the Supreme Court's immunity decision affects Trump's legal cases
JULY 8, 2024
1. Core constitutional powers
The Supreme Court found that presidents have absolute immunity for “core constitutional powers.” This references certain powers given to the president in Article II of the Constitution, which includes being the commander in chief of the military, the ability to pardon individuals and appointing ambassadors and judges to the Supreme Court.
This means that even if the president does something that is considered illegal while exercising those core powers, he or she cannot be prosecuted for that action.
2. Official acts and presumption of immunity
The court also ruled that Trump “is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
What is an official act? It’s the parts of the president’s job that don’t fall under Article II, like holding press conferences or speaking with foreign leaders.
Then there’s the presumption of immunity. The court is basically saying the president deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to immunity for official acts and, therefore, the bar is really high to prove otherwise. Litman said the path to overcome the presumption of immunity is unknown “because [the court] gave such sketchy guidance.”
3. Unofficial acts
The court did say there are actions that can be prosecuted, they just have to be unrelated to the president’s official duties. This likely won’t be a cut-and-dried situation when it comes to parsing out which of Trump’s actions were official or unofficial. To make matters more complicated, Litman explained:
“One big problem here is the court has said when you’re deciding — even if it’s an unofficial act — you cannot take into account any evidence of conduct that would be an official act.”
Meaning that even if the act is deemed unofficial and therefore open for prosecution, Smith will not be allowed to use certain evidence if that evidence is of an official nature. The court also ruled, “courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” so the reasoning behind any potential criminal act conducted by a president doesn’t matter and cannot be presented in a trial.
“Even things that seem very clearly unofficial could be hard to prove that they are and could always give rise to an argument that they are [official],” Litman said.
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/08/g-s1-858 ... egal-cases
Sections 2 and 3 are now why the courts have to decide if the prosecution's evidence is from an official Act or not.
So a new grand jury was convened. The grand jury under the new SC parameters still conclude crime. Now the judge must decide if the prosecution's evidence falls into the sketchy outline the Supreme Court presented.
Hence Jack Smith's (oversized & court approved) filing, so now the judge may examine if the evidence presented is viable under the Supreme Court decision. The defendant may respond with another pre trial brief.
JULY 8, 2024
1. Core constitutional powers
The Supreme Court found that presidents have absolute immunity for “core constitutional powers.” This references certain powers given to the president in Article II of the Constitution, which includes being the commander in chief of the military, the ability to pardon individuals and appointing ambassadors and judges to the Supreme Court.
This means that even if the president does something that is considered illegal while exercising those core powers, he or she cannot be prosecuted for that action.
2. Official acts and presumption of immunity
The court also ruled that Trump “is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
What is an official act? It’s the parts of the president’s job that don’t fall under Article II, like holding press conferences or speaking with foreign leaders.
Then there’s the presumption of immunity. The court is basically saying the president deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to immunity for official acts and, therefore, the bar is really high to prove otherwise. Litman said the path to overcome the presumption of immunity is unknown “because [the court] gave such sketchy guidance.”
3. Unofficial acts
The court did say there are actions that can be prosecuted, they just have to be unrelated to the president’s official duties. This likely won’t be a cut-and-dried situation when it comes to parsing out which of Trump’s actions were official or unofficial. To make matters more complicated, Litman explained:
“One big problem here is the court has said when you’re deciding — even if it’s an unofficial act — you cannot take into account any evidence of conduct that would be an official act.”
Meaning that even if the act is deemed unofficial and therefore open for prosecution, Smith will not be allowed to use certain evidence if that evidence is of an official nature. The court also ruled, “courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” so the reasoning behind any potential criminal act conducted by a president doesn’t matter and cannot be presented in a trial.
“Even things that seem very clearly unofficial could be hard to prove that they are and could always give rise to an argument that they are [official],” Litman said.
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/08/g-s1-858 ... egal-cases
Sections 2 and 3 are now why the courts have to decide if the prosecution's evidence is from an official Act or not.
So a new grand jury was convened. The grand jury under the new SC parameters still conclude crime. Now the judge must decide if the prosecution's evidence falls into the sketchy outline the Supreme Court presented.
Hence Jack Smith's (oversized & court approved) filing, so now the judge may examine if the evidence presented is viable under the Supreme Court decision. The defendant may respond with another pre trial brief.