Hallo to All Members. As you can see we regularly Upgrade our Servers, (Sorry for any Downtime during this).
We also have added more Forums to help you with many things and for you to enjoy.
We now need you to help us to keep this site up and running. This site works at a loss every month and
we appeal to you to donate what you can.
If you would like to help us, then please just send a message to any Member of Staff for info on how to do this,,,, & Thank You for Being Members of this site.
Not Going to Happen: Why Supreme Court Won't Bite TRUMPs' Bait
Historians’ Brief Teaches Supreme Court 14th Amendments’ REAL History.
The Top Court Will Hear Arguments in The Colorado Case on 8 February.
The 14th Amendment Plan to Disqualify TRUMP Explained
BBC 31 JAN 2024
US Supreme Court official group portrait
Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in Donald Trumps’ challenge of a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that found he was ineligible for the states’ primary ballot after violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Confederate President Jefferson Davis..14th Amendment was used against the likes of him
A longshot legal bid in multiple US states to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 US presidential ballot has led to him being kicked off the ballot in Colorado and Maine.
The strategy involves trying to block Mr Trump from the primary ballot by invoking a rarely used provision of the US Constitution - Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that bars those who have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the country from holding federal office.
Initially backed by liberal activists, the theory that Mr Trump was ineligible to run for the presidency again after the 6 January Capitol riot gained more prominence in recent months as some conservatives also embraced it.
The Colorado Supreme Court was the first to offer legal backing to the idea, ruling on 19 December that Mr Trump be removed from the state's 2024 presidential ballot.
It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
Maine's top election official - Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows - then ruled on 28 December that Mr Trump could not run for president in the state, also citing the 14th Amendment.
Both rulings are on hold pending appeal, but critics have warned that if the cases move forward they risk robbing voters of the right to deliver their own verdict on whether the former president should return to the White House.
The Supreme Court, which Mr Trump helped shape, will be the ultimate arbiter after it said it would take up the case
What is The Theory?
The 14th Amendment was ratified after the American Civil War, and Section 3 was deployed to bar secessionists from returning to previous government posts once southern states re-joined the Union.
It was used against the likes of Confederate president Jefferson Davis and his vice-president Alexander Stephens, both of whom had served in Congress, but has seldom been invoked since. It re-emerged as a political flashpoint in the wake of Trumps effort to overturn his 2020 election defeat, which culminated in the riot at the US Capitol in January 2021.
In the riots' aftermath, the US House of Representatives impeached the then-president on a charge of "incitement of insurrection"
Had the US Senate voted to convict him, it would have had the option to take a second, simple-majority vote to bar him from ever serving in office again.
But that never happened: the Senate failed to reach the two-thirds majority required to convict Trump, so there was no second vote.
Does Section 3 Apply to Trump?
Free Speech For People, an advocacy group, has been arguing that it does. On behalf of a group of voters, it filed motions in Illinois and Massachusetts to remove Trump from those state's ballots.
In late January, authorities in both states declined to take Trump off the ballot, although Free Speech For People has vowed to appeal.
Last year, the group filed challenges against five Trump-backing lawmakers whom it labelled "insurrectionists".
One -against Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene - was heard in court but ultimately defeated.
Free Speech for People targeted Trump-backed congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and ex-lawmaker Madison Cawthorn
The 14th Amendment was not written solely to apply to the Civil Wars' immediate aftermath, but also to future insurrections, argues Ron Fein, the organisations' legal director.
He told the BBC the US Capitol riot succeeded "in delaying the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in our nation's history, which is further than the Confederates ever got". "The particular candidates we challenged in 2022 had participated or assisted in the efforts that led up to the insurrection," Mr Fein said.
All these cases, he argued, established important legal precedents that can be applied to show "Trump is the chief insurrectionist".
In New Mexico, a challenge brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) watchdog group saw Couy Griffin, a local county commissioner who participated in the Capitol riot, removed from office under Section 3 - the first such ruling since 1869.
How Will It Move Forward?
The case in Colorado challenging Mr Trumps eligibility was filed by Crew on behalf of six state residents.
The group is also separately petitioning the top election officials in at least 18 other states to remove Mr Trump from the primary ballot.
The legal strategy has picked up steam since August, when Mr Trump was accused of election subversion in two separate criminal cases.
That same month, conservative legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen wrote in a law review paper that Section 3 is "self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress".
Trump could therefore be rendered ineligible for election, the pair concluded.
Mr Baude and Mr Paulsen are members of the Federalist Society, a highly influential conservative advocacy group, and their stance has since been backed by other legal experts with conservative credentials.
Even the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority and trio of Trump-appointed judges, may be receptive to their argument, said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a dean at the Yale School of Management who supports the Baude-Paulsen perspective.
What's The Argument Against It?
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in November 2022.. Georgias' top elections official has called the move an effort 'to short-circuit the ballot box'
Detractors have questioned both the theory's viability, and whether it should be implemented in a highly partisan America.
"To make a tortured legalistic logic to try to stop people from voting for who they want to vote for is a Soviet-style, banana republic argument," said New Hampshire Republican Party chairman Chris Ager.
"I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm neutral," he added. "But this whole attempt is bad for the country."
Even Brad Raffensperger, a Republican and the top election official in Georgia and a previous target of Mr Trumps ire, rejected the move as "merely the newest way of attempting to short-circuit the ballot box".
What Does Trump Say?
Donald Trump rallies in Iowa on 29 October
Despite his mounting legal troubles, Mr Trump remains the dominant frontrunner for the Republican nomination and is polling neck-and-neck with President Joe Biden ahead of their expected rematch.
The Trump campaign has said that the legal challenge is "stretching the law beyond recognition" and has no basis "except in the minds of those who are pushing it". Trumps attorney in the Colorado case argued that the twin dismissals in Michigan and Minnesota were evidence of "an emerging consensus here across the judiciary". A third dismissal in Arizona has further aided their case.
"The petitioners are asking this court to do something that's never been done in the history of the United States," Scott Gessler said. "The evidence doesn't come close to allowing the court to do it."
Quote:
WHAT DOES SECTION 3 OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT SAY?
Quote:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Re: Supreme Court NOT Keen to Judge TRUMP 14th Amendment Case-5 Takeaways From Hearin
TRUMP DEMANDS Election NOW, to Be Held Next TUESDAY..After a Very 'Beautiful' Day' at The Supreme Court Supreme Court NOT Keen to Judge TRUMPS' 14th Amendment Case in Hearing on 8 FEB
TRUMP on Trial: 5 Takeaways From Supreme Courts’ Hearing on Disqualifying TRUMP
The Guardian 9 FEB 2024
None of the justices — even the courts’ liberal wing — seemed eager to rule that the 14th amendments’ insurrection clause bars TRUMP from running for president
On The Docket: The 14th Amendment Insurrection Clause
The US supreme court heard oral arguments on whether former president Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on Thursday – and most justices sounded deeply skeptical of the effort.
All six of the courts’ conservative justices aggressively questioned the arguments that the state of Colorado had been right in determining that Trump should be barred from appearing as a candidate under section three of the US constitutions’ 14th amendment.
Two of the three liberal justices asked pointed questions as well, an indication that there may be broad consensus to strike down the ruling....Even the liberal justices seemed skeptical of Colorados’ arguments
Here Are Some Key Takeaways
Liberal justice Elena Kagan told Jason Murray, the attorney representing the Coloradans who had sued to remove Trump from their state’s ballot, that disqualifying a president for insurrection “sounds awfully national to me”, and said that the idea that one state could disqualify a candidate and possibly tip a national election was “extraordinary”.
Liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed deeply wary of Murray’s arguments that section three of the 14th amendment applies to presidents – pointing out that the clause itself lists out other offices but not the presidency.
“Why didn’t they put the word ‘PRESIDENT’ in the very enumerated list in section three?
The thing that really is troubling to me is I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred, and president is not there,” she said during questioning of Murray. “And so I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focusing on the president.”
As Murray responded with a historical example in which a lawmaker argued presidents should be included, she cut him off.
“Doesn’t that at least suggest ambiguity?” she asked. “If there’s an ambiguity, why would we construe it to, as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out, against democracy?”
Conservative justices had raised similar points.
“What about the idea that we should think about democracy?” asked Brett Kavanaugh. “Think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice, of letting the people decide. Because your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree.”
There was almost NO discussion or debate over whether Trump himself actually committed insurrection
The most controversial argument in the case – at least among the broader public – is the Colorado supreme court’s determination that Trump committed insurrection. If their ruling stood a chance of surviving, the justices probably would have had to give this issue careful consideration.
But in more than two hours of oral arguments, there was almost no substantive discussion of whether this is true – a sign that they’re likely to toss out the case without even getting so far as to consider this point.
Various justices did question who exactly was expected to make that determination.
The justices seemed to agree that states could not act without action from Congress
Several justices seemed ready to embrace the argument that states could not unilaterally decide to remove a candidate from the ballot for insurrection – and questioned why a state should act when federal insurrection charges hadn’t been brought.
“Congress has the authority here, not the states,” Kavanaugh said at one point. He suggested that section three had not been used for more than 150 years based on a historical understanding that an act of Congress was required.
Chief justice John Roberts pointed out that other provisions of the 14th amendment restrict the power of states. He wondered aloud why section three would then give states enormous power to disqualify a candidate. Reading section three to give such enormous power to states was “ahistorical”, Roberts said.
Kavanaugh also noted that there were federal statutes to convict people of insurrection that would bar them from holding federal office – and pointed out that Trump has not only not been convicted but not even charged with that.
“President Trump has not been charged with that, so what are we to make of that?” he asked.
“If the concern you have, which I understand, is that insurrectionists should not be able to hold federal office, there is a tool to ensure that that does not happen, namely federal prosecution of insurrectionists. And if convicted, Congress made clear, you are automatically barred from holding a federal office. That tool exists.”
Justices Worried About Retaliatory Actions
Roberts asked Murray about “the big, plain consequences of your position” and risk of retaliation from Republicans who might move to kick Biden off the ballot in states they control. “If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed,” he warned.
“In very quick order, I would expect, although my predictions never have been correct, I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”
TRUMP Responded With Glee
The former president called the oral arguments “a beautiful thing to watch” in a news conference with reporters after the hearings’ conclusion.
Will This Matter?
After the oral arguments, the Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller told the Guardian that he expects the court to keep Trump on the ballot. “It’s not surprising to see the justices express discomfort with the proposition that the United States supreme court should wade into a factual and legal mire like this,” he said. “But it was somewhat surprising that there seemed to be consensus around the theory that states could not do this without congressional legislation.”
He also predicted a speedy decision in the case. “The court will likely try to get an opinion out as quickly as possible in this expedited proceeding, perhaps even by the end of the month.”
TRUMPS' OWN Attorney Hands Prosecutors AMMO to Use AGAINST Him
DOOM; TRUMP EXPLODES In Anger -SUPREME Court DISQUALIFIES Clarence Thomas
TRUMP EXPLODED IN ANGER AS THE SUPREME COURT DISQUALIFIED CLARENCE THOMAS!
TRUMPS’ 'Con-Man Hustle' FAILS - Action of Supreme Court on Justice Clarence Thomas Spells DOOM For Case Against TRUMP. Investigations Show Thomas Continues to Hide Taxable Income and Has 'Shady' Connections
MSN MailOnline 27 FEB 2024
BAD MAN WALKING ...OUT
Legal Controversy Surrounds Justice Clarence Thomas for Alleged Tax Misconduct
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is still under scrutiny as he faces the prospect of a lawsuit concerning alleged tax fraud and ethics violations. Thomas had remained largely under the radar for years, not disclosing gifts from billionaires, which experts suggest might have implications for tax laws.
How was Justice Clarence Thomas Wife Ginni Involved in Jan. 6?
Ginni Thomas pressed the Trump White House and lawmakers to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, exchanging more than two dozen text messages with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the weeks after the vote.
She corresponded with lawyer John Eastman, a former Thomas clerk who had advocated a fringe legal theory that Vice President Mike Pence could block the certification of Biden’s electoral college win.
Thomas also attended the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally before the Capitol attack and told the House committee investigating the attack in 2022 that she still believed the 2020 election was stolen.
Ginni Thomas’s involvement “raises the question of whether he can fairly assess the gravity of the conduct that President Trump is accused of,” Fogel said. “Even if it’s not the precise issue that the court is deciding, it [may create] the appearance that he is going to try to find a way to rule in President Trump’s favor because of his wife’s affiliations and advocacy.”
re: Most CORRUPT Supreme Court in The World & The TRUMP Coup
US Supreme Court Agrees to Hear TRUMP Immunity Claim 22 > 26th APRIL - "This is B.S.—WHY Did They Take So Long to Decide? -Its a Dilatory Tactic to Help Delay His Coup Trial" Justices to consider whether former president is immune from prosecution in election interference case
PLUS Mitch McConnell to Step Down as US Senate Republican Leader After 'Falling Out' With TRUMP and Feuding With Him Over Election Falsehoods.
The Guardian 29 FEB 2024
The US supreme court will decide if Donald Trump can be prosecuted on election interference charges, indicating it will move quickly in the immunity case.
Trumps’ appeal to the nations’ highest court marks the final challenge the former US president can make on the immunity issue related to his federal criminal case.
Trumps’ team had viewed for months that the appeal would probably fall short on the law but would be an effective way to delay the impending trial, which had been due to begin in early March.
The court on Wednesday agreed to decide Trumps’ claim of immunity on charges brought by a special counsel involving his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, again thrusting the nation’s top judicial body into the election fray as Trump seeks to regain the presidency.
The justices put on hold the criminal case being pursued by special counsel Jack Smith and will review a lower court’s rejection of Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution because he was president when he took actions aimed at reversing Joe Biden’s election victory over him.
Trumps’ lawyers had requested a stay of that ruling, warning of dire consequences for the presidency absent such immunity. Trump has made it no secret that his overarching legal strategy is to seek delays, ideally beyond the 2024 election in November, in the hopes that winning re-election could enable him to potentially pardon himself or direct his attorney general to drop the charges.
__________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP..........................
TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING
PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1..
THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES
re: Most CORRUPT Supreme Court in The World & The TRUMP Coup
Nakedly Partisan Supreme Court Lets TRUMP Dance Above The Law-WHY The Delay?
The SUPREME COURT is playing along with TRUMPS' DELAY game.
MSNBC 2 MAR 2024
In 2000, Bush v. Gore was decided in less than a week by the Court! WHY The Difference?
The Supreme Court apparently backs Donald Trumps’ delay strategy for his legal woes by seeming to slow-walk the process of coming to a decision on his ‘presidential immunity’ argument. How this could impact TRUMPS' case in Georgia and beyond belief
The Supreme Court decided to hear Donald Trump’s claim that he — or any president — is immune from criminal prosecution.
This guarantees that Trump will enjoy a significant delay before he stands trial for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. It’s entirely possible that the trial won’t begin until after Election Day on Nov. 5, when Trump is all but assured to face President Joe Biden in an electoral rematch.
This is a miscarriage of justice. Here’s why, and what you should know:
Trump claims on appeal that he is entitled to presidential immunity for plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The high court has validated Trump’s legal strategy of repeated delay to push back any trial date until after it loses electoral relevance.
The hearing, now set for late April, may result in an opinion issued as late as late summer.
That opinion could again return the case to the appeals court on a limited question of the Court’s choosing.
Even assuming Trump’s claim of immunity eventually fails — which is widely expected — the decision won’t be issued in time for the election interference case to go to trial before the presidential election on Nov. 5.
Given that SCOTUS decided Bush v. Gore in a matter of days, deciding the 2000 presidential election in Bush’s favor, the Supreme Court’s delay on Trump’s behalf appears intentional.
'He needs to be aggressively muzzled'
TRUMP's Killing Defense Lawyers' Work...
Donald Trump's interference behind the scenes and in courtrooms is severely impacting his lawyers' ability to defend him adequately which is leading to harsher-than-expected verdicts, according to insiders who have watched him in action.
With most of Trump's civil suits behind him, combined with a financial fraud trial, that have resulted in over a half billion dollars in penalties, the former president now enters a more perilous stage as his criminal trials loom that could send him off to prison.
According to a report from the New York Times, Trump's appearances in court, his grandstanding, his decision to take the stand and his very presence is making his lawyers' lives a living hell as they are forced to bend to his demands — many of them that are detrimental to the case at hand.
In an interview with the Times, former Trump lawyer Ty Cobb had some simple advice for the lawyers handling the Manhattan hush money case slated to start later in m March: "I would expect Trump to try to act up. He needs to be aggressively muzzled by the lawyers if he is to avoid offending the jury.”
As the report notes, that has been a continuing problem when the former president is sitting in on trials at times when he doesn't have to be there.
The Times is reporting, "Typically, defendants play a role in preparing their cases, and sometimes an important one. Seldom, though, do they formulate, let alone dictate, trial strategy or make spontaneous tactical decisions from the defense table.
In two of his recent losing civil cases Mr. Trump did exactly that. The major questions in the cases were essentially decided by the time Mr. Trump arrived, but the trials were held to determine what penalties he’d face."
Adding to his woes is his presence in the courtroom that has led his attorneys to "grandstand" before the court to make him happy which has led to admonishments from the bench, most notably in the battles between attorney Alina Habba and Judge Arthur Engoron.
Trump's decisions to testify — sometimes over his lawyer's advice — has also come back to haunt him with the financial fraud trial as exhibit A.
"After the trial, the judge came down hard on Mr. Trump, imposing a $355 million penalty that, after interest, has climbed to more than $450 million. In his ruling, Justice Engoron singled out Mr. Trump’s testimony — Ms. James called him as a witness — writing that when he took the stand, he 'rarely responded to the questions asked,' behavior that 'severely compromised his credibility.'"
The report adds, "Mr. Trump also undercut his lawyers in his other recent civil trial, in which the writer E. Jean Carroll asked a jury to penalize him for defaming her. The former president attended nearly every day of that trial, badgering Ms. Habba, who led his defense.
Mr. Trump audibly exhorted her to 'get up' to protest something said by the judge, a witness or Ms. Carroll’s lawyers, at one point banging Ms. Habba’s arm with the back of his hand. Sometimes she took his directives; other times she shook her head lightly, apparently brushing him off."
ALSO - Trump lawyer Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school
Justice System ‘Bends Over Backwards’ to Shelter Defendant TRUMP
What the News Won’t Say About the 2024 Election Should Scare You
__________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP..........................
TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING
PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1..
THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES
re: Not Going to Happen: Why Supreme Court Won't Bite TRUMPs' Bait
Most CORRUPT Supreme Court in US History
US Supreme Court Ruling on TRUMP Ballot Ban: Five Key Takeaways
Unanimity over 14th amendment masks supreme court schism on accountability
Donald Trump can remain on the presidential ballot but the question of whether he was guilty of insurrection unresolved
The Guardian 5 MAR 2024
The US supreme court ruled on Monday that former president Donald Trump cannot be kept off the ballot in Colorado, foreclosing a series of legal challenges the Republican frontrunner faced in multiple states as he seeks a return to the White House.
The 14th amendment’s third clause, enacted after the US civil war, seeks to prevent people who were elected officials who engaged in insurrection from then holding office again. It has been rarely used since, but was resurrected by advocacy groups and voters who claim it applies to Trump because of his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.
The court’s nine justices agreed that a state can’t remove a federal candidate from its ballot. Though the decision was unanimous, briefs filed separately indicate tension among the justices about how far the majority opinion went.
Because the case involved an obscure part of the constitution, the court had to parse questions of how the clause works and to whom it applies. And, perhaps most critically, the court’s decision held tremendous capacity for disruption during an election year with a leading candidate known to rile up his followers.
Here are some key takeaways from the decision and the broader context at play.
State v Federal Rights at Heart of Issue
The core of the decision rests simply on the interplay between state and federal rights.
Though states administer federal elections, the court decided states have no authority to remove a candidate from the running under Section 3. Instead, the majority opinion noted, the 14th amendment “expanded federal power at the expense of state autonomy”. Allowing states to do as Colorado did would “invert the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power”.
The language of the clause doesn’t include any direction on how a state could enforce it, the majority said. Only Congress is mentioned as an enforcer, they argue.
States could, and did, use the section to disqualify state candidates from holding office if they violate the insurrectionist clause, the majority wrote.
This federalism argument was clearly agreed to by all nine justices – though the majority opinion goes on further to suggest how Congress might act to enforce the clause in the future.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson all wrote, in two separate opinions, that the majority opinion went too far.
The decision that states lack the authority here “provides a secure and sufficient basis to resolve this case”, the liberal justices (Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson) wrote. “The Court should have started and ended its opinion with this conclusion.”
Tension among the justices on how far the ruling goes
The justices’ unanimity in the belief that the Colorado court couldn’t remove Trump was fractured by two addendums that strike at the extension of the case beyond its scope.
The court’s majority – conservative justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – specified how the insurrectionist clause would need to be enforced. It would require an act of Congress to determine who would be ineligible to hold office because of insurrection, they wrote, relying on another section of the 14th amendment to make the case.
In December 2000, Brett Kavanaugh joined the legal team of George W. Bush, which was trying to stop the ballot recount in Florida.
The liberal justices, in one separate opinion, and the conservative Barrett, in her own, said the majority went too far by prescribing what kind of process would be needed.
The case did not require the justices to “address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced”, Barrett wrote. Because of the sensitivity of the issue and its context, the justices should have left it with the federalism justification alone. “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” she wrote.
The liberal justices took this disagreement further, saying the majority opinion moved into constitutional questions it didn’t need to as a way to “insulate this court and petitioner from future controversy”.
The case did not involve federal action; it was a state court in Colorado that decided Trump could not be on the ballot there. The majority did not need to move into contested federal issues, the liberals said. “These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous.”
No decision on whether Trump engaged in insurrection
What’s left entirely unsaid in the court’s opinions issued on Monday: whether Trump engaged in insurrection.
A finding that Trump had himself engaged in insurrection would have been required for keeping the former president off the ballot. The clause says that a person could be disqualified from holding office again if they had “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”.
Trump and his team fought against this claim, saying his actions after the 2020 election did not constitute an insurrection. Instead, he argued, 6 January was more akin to a “riot” and his comments to his followers, which some have contended amounted to incitement, were protected by the first amendment. In Colorado, the state supreme court had concluded that he incited his followers to engage in insurrection, which met the definition for engaging in insurrection.
The legal cases against Trump over his election subversion will continue unabated by any opining by the high court about whether he is an insurrectionist.
The potential for mayhem/violence was high because of this case
The 2024 election was already marked by tension because of the presence of Trump; his ability to direct his followers is unparalleled in American politics.
The cases against Trump in several states – for election subversion, hush-money claims, keeping classified documents and business fraud – have not injured his standing with his followers, but instead seemingly solidified or even amplified their support.
The 14th amendment cases entered into this fraught dynamic, throwing yet another legal bomb, albeit an obscure one, that gave Trump’s followers further belief that there is a conspiracy against Trump’s ability to run for re-election.
On the campaign trail, Trump has used these legal liabilities to his benefit, claiming they are evidence of election interference and a sign that President Joe Biden, not he, is a threat to democracy.
A survey focused on political violence conducted by the University of Chicago’s Chicago Project on Security & Threats in January showed that the court’s decision on the 14th amendment held the potential for further support of political violence, regardless of how the court decided, because of the extreme partisan divide on the issue.
Trump called the decision “very well-crafted” and said he thought it would bring the country together. Most states were “thrilled” to have Trump on the ballot, he said, but others didn’t want him on there for “political reasons” and because of “poll numbers”.
The court clearly considered the political implications
While courts often claim to avoid wading in on political questions, politics clearly played into how the court decided on this case. The implications of how removing Trump could play out electorally are contemplated throughout the opinions.
The potential that a candidate could be ineligible in some states, leading to a “patchwork” effect, would disrupt voters, the majority wrote in their opinion.
“An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times,” the majority wrote. “The disruption would be all the more acute – and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result – if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos – arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.”
It wasn’t just politics with the election itself or the public at large that came into view; the political dynamics between the justices showed through as well.
The liberal justices jabbed at the majority opinion for its extension of the case into how Congress would need to act, claiming that was an attempt to “insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office”.
Barrett, in her separate opinion, tried to strike a conciliatory note. She called attention to the fact that the court unanimously decided on a “politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election”. The court’s goal, she said, should be to turn down the national temperature instead of inflame it.
“For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case,” she wrote. “That is the message Americans should take home.”
The Most Corrupt Supreme Court in The World and The TRUMP Coup
Thom Hartman, MS RAW
Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits with his wife and conservative activist Virginia Thomas while he waits to speak at the Heritage Foundation
At least four members of the most corrupt Supreme Court in American history have decided to help Trump delay his trial for trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
Just like in 2000, when five Republicans on the Court ignored Al Gore’s probable (later found to be definite) win in Florida to put Bush in the White House, today’s Court is doing as much as they can to help Trump win this November.
In a hail-Mary attempt to push his trials beyond the election, hoping he’d win with Putin’s help and could then pardon himself and gut the DOJ, Trump’s attorneys filed a claim that his efforts to overturn the 2020 election were “official acts” and that all presidents have “absolute immunity” while in office and for the rest of their lives thereafter.
Nobody took it seriously. Even the appeals court his bid first went to pointed out how absurd it was.
“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival,” Judge Florence Pan, one of the appeals court judges, asked Trump’s lawyers, “[and not] be subject to criminal prosecution?”
The answer from Trump’s attorney D. John Sauer was that Trump can’t be prosecuted unless he’s first impeached, which, as noted, is absurd on its face. Under this logic, President Biden could today order Trump assassinated and dare Congress to impeach him for it.
But absurd is nothing new to the six bought-off Republicans on the Supreme Court.
As I laid out in detail in The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America, Republicans on the Court have, for almost a century, taken the side of autocracy over democracy, billionaires over workers, and corporations over consumers and the environment.
— They tell us that corporations are “persons” with rights under the Bill of Rights.
— They tell us when morbidly rich people or massive corporations bribe politicians that that’s merely their “First Amendment free speech” right.
— They ruled that American women and girls must live under rules established by a 17th century witch-burning judge.
— They repeatedly knocked down the rights of people living in Red states to vote.
— They make it harder for unions to function.
— They gutted Obamacare.
— They ruled that it’s okay to discriminate against gay people.
— They flooded our nation with guns.
— They encourage monopoly. — They put shackles on the EPA, ruling that it can’t regulate carbon dioxide.
And now they’re doing everything they can to get Donald Trump back into office so Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, both well into their seventies, can retire confident in the knowledge they’ll be replaced by rightwing judges chosen by the Federalist Society.
Keep in mind, the reason Sandra Day O’Connor became the tie-breaking vote to block the Florida Supreme Court’s order for a recount in 2000 was because she didn’t want Al Gore to choose her successor (she was retiring because of her husband’s Alzheimer’s). Self-interest much?
Back in 1974, at least Chief Justice Rehnquist had the good sense to recuse himself in the US v Nixon case because of his close ties to the Nixon administration. Here, Clarence Thomas’ wife was deeply involved in January 6th and he won’t even consider a recusal.
The Court was given this case weeks ago, with a detailed unanimous decision by the DC appeals court that they could have simply let stand. Alternatively, they could have scheduled a hearing for the day after they got the case. They could have heard arguments and even rendered a decision by now.
But, no. The Republicans on the Court want more Republicans on the Court. And they don’t want Joe Biden expanding the Court, which they know he’s considering for a second term.
So they introduced what will be at least a 130-day delay in Trump’s trial. They won’t even hear arguments until April 22. Democracy be damned.
As former assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Richard Signorelli, noted:
“[SCOTUS] will prematurely hear a completely frivolous claim that if sustained, would allow any POTUS to commit crimes with almost unbridled immunity. This will delay his federal 1/6 trial indefinitely. A political and traitorous decision from a totally discredited SCOTUS.”
Jack Smith Laid Out The Stakes in His Appeal to The Court:
“The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy … the public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former President is charged with trying to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office.
“The nation has a compelling interest in the prompt resolution of this case. In all criminal cases, delay can be ‘fatal’ to achieving just outcomes.
“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case; and one that has unique national importance here.”
But the Republicans on the Court don’t care.
This is one of the most naked partisan power grabs in the Court’s history, particularly given that the future makeup of the Court itself hangs on this election.
And the stakes are huge. After all, Trump didn’t just RAPED. Jean Carroll, damaging her life and mental health. He raped America as well.
— He packed his cabinet with such corrupt billionaires that five of them were referred by their own staffs to the Justice Department for prosecution (which an equally corrupt Bill Barr ignored).
— When, in April of 2020, he learned that most of the people dying of Covid were Black people in Blue states, he ended America’s lockdown and began pushing to get people back to work. He also STOPPED the Anti-COVID vaccines going into the poorer areas. Sean Penn stepped in and provided them
As a result, America had more deaths from Covid as a percentage of our population than any other developed country on Earth. — He stirred up religious and racial hatred and encouraged Nazis and racist militias.
— He devastated the EPA, pushing out over half their scientists.
— He cut taxes on his morbidly rich peers, producing an $8 trillion addition to our national debt, more than any president in history.
— He put three radicals on the Supreme Court and several hundred crackpot, unqualified judges on the federal bench.
— He sucked up to Putin and trash-talked our democratic allies.
— He tried to destroy NATO, and promises to finish the job if he’s back in office next year.
— He empowered religious fanatics who are now on a campaign to outlaw abortion and birth control, working to destroy our entire public school system, and stirring up hatred against the queer community.
And now the six corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court are going out of their way to give him the delays he wants so he can stay out of jail and continue his campaign to end our American way of life.
Even if/when they rule against Trump, he will have won because he got the “fatal to justice” delay he asked them for that will now turbocharge his campaign while giving a patina of credibility to his claims of “selective prosecution” and “election interference.”
If Democrats make it through this election intact, expanding the size of the Court, imposing 18-year term limits on the justices, and imposing a code of ethics on them must be the first order of business in 2025.
The Five Worst Supreme Court Justices In American History
Justice Stephen Johnson Field. As a sitting justice in 1880, Justice Stephen Johnson Field launched a dark horse bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
Chief Justice Roger Taney. Any list of terrible Supreme Court justices that does not begin with Chief Justice Roger Taney will inherently be controversial.
Justice James Clark McReynolds. I describe Justice James Clark McReynolds’s unique blend of self-centered bigotry in Injustices: McReynolds was, in Time magazine’s words, “a savagely sarcastic, incredibly reactionary Puritan anti-Semite.”
Chief Justice Melville Fuller. If it were up to Melville Fuller, Abraham Lincoln would never have been president.
Justice Clarence Thomas is the only current member of the Supreme Court who has explicitly embraced the reasoning of Lochner Era decisions striking down nationwide child labor laws and making similar attacks on federal power.
IF the Supreme Court rule Trump is immune from prosecution, it could lead to CIVIL UNREST and MASS protest ralleys never seen before in the US
re: Not Going to Happen: Why Supreme Court Won't Bite TRUMPs' Bait
Most CORRUPT Supreme Court in US History....
REPUBLICAN Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh Knows TRUTH of Sexual Assault And He Got Away With It, Professor Christine Blasey Ford Says Professor whose accusation rocked 2018 Supreme Court hearings says rightwing justice Kavanaugh is NOT an honest person
The Guardian 14 MAR 2024
In hearings in 2018, Christine Blasey Ford (left) accused Brett Kavanaugh, then a US supreme court nominee, of sexual assault.
The US supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh is not a “consummately honest person” and “must know” what really happened on the night more than 40 years ago when he allegedly sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford, his accuser writes in an eagerly awaited memoir.
A research psychologist from northern California, Ford was thrust into the spotlight in September 2018 as Kavanaugh, a Bush aide turned federal judge, became Donald Trump’s second conservative court nominee. Her allegations almost derailed Kavanaugh’s appointment and created headlines around the world.
Ford’s memoir, One Way Back, will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.
“The fact is, he was there in the room with me that night in 1982,” Ford writes. “And I believe he knows what happened. Even if it’s hazy from the alcohol, I believe he must know.
“Once he categorically denied my allegations as well as any bad behavior from his past during a Fox News interview, I felt more certainty than ever that after my experience with him, he had not gone on to become the consummately honest person befitting a supreme court justice.”
Kavanaugh’s nomination became mired in controversy after a Washington Post interview in which Ford said Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted her at a party in Montgomery county, Maryland, when they were both in high school.
“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” Ford, then 51, told the Post. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”
Kavanaugh vehemently denied the accusation, helping fuel hearing-room rancor not seen since the 1991 confirmation of Clarence Thomas, a rightwinger accused of sexually harassing a co-worker, Anita Hill.
Supported by Republicans and Trump, Kavanaugh rode out the storm to join Thomas on the court. Trump would later add another conservative, Amy Coney Barrett, tipping the court 6-3 to the right. That court has since passed down major rightwing rulings, most prominently removing the federal right to abortion.
In her book, Ford says she thought Kavanaugh might “step down to avoid putting his family through an investigation or further scrutiny”, adding that she wanted to tell him he should “save us both the trouble”, because “I don’t want this as much as you don’t want this”.
She has been asked, she says, what she would have done if Kavanaugh had “reached out and apologised”.
She writes: “Who would he be apologising to – me? The country? What would he be apologising for – that night? The harassment [of Ford by Trump supporters] around the testimony?
“All I can guess is that if he’d come to me, really leveled with me, and said, ‘I don’t remember this happening, but it might have, and I’m so sorry,’ it might have been a significant, therapeutic moment for survivors in general … I might’ve wobbled a bit. I might have thought, ‘You know what, he was a jackass in high school but now he’s not.’
“But when my story came out and he flat-out denied any possibility of every single thing I said, it did alleviate a little of my guilt. For me, the question of whether he had changed was answered. Any misgivings about him being a good person went away.”
Ford says she decided to press through the difficulties of coming forward – meeting Democratic senators opposed to Kavanaugh, being grilled by Republicans supporting him, becoming famous herself – because of the importance of the court.
She writes: “Honestly, if it hadn’t been the supreme court – if my attacker had been running for a local office, for example – I probably wouldn’t have said anything.”
Calling this “a sad, scary thing to admit”, Ford adds: “But this was a job at one of our most revered institutions, which we have historically held in the highest esteem. That’s what I learned at school.”
Saying she was “thinking and behaving according to principle”, she adds: “I was under the impression (delusion?) that almost everyone else viewed it from the same perspective.... I was WRONG...
“Wasn’t it inarguable that a supreme court justice should be held to the highest standard? A presidency you could win, but to be a supreme court justice, you needed to live your perfection. These nine people make decisions that affect every person in the country. I figured the application process should be as thorough as possible, and perhaps I could be a letter of (non)reference.”
Professor Christine Blasey Fords' FULL statement to U.S. Senate on alleged sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh
__________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP..........................
TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING
PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1..
THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES
re: Not Going to Happen: Why Supreme Court Won't Bite TRUMPs' Bait
Most CORRUPT Supreme Court in History....
The Supreme Court Just Tipped The Scales For House Republicans
MSNBC 30 MAR 2024
“They think they are very clever. They think they can get away with it because no one is paying attention. But we are paying attention,” says Chris Hayes on the conservative majority of the Supreme Court.
>>> YEAH RIGHT...'Just' to 'cover' their decision so they DONT appear BIAS....
DAY BEFORE; Liz Cheney urges the Supreme Court to stop aiding TRUMPs' delay tactics
AND;
Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. repeatedly suggested during an oral argument that government officials could use a 19th century law to ban the distribution of abortion pills through the mail.
AND;
Thomas Gives 'Daughter' Plum Clerkship, Gateway to Elite Conservative Class
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has hired a woman he considers a "nearly adopted daughter" to be one of his law clerks, setting her up to join American conservative elites dedicated to advancing Thomas' vision of the United States.
COMMENTS; If there are any sane judges on the Supreme Court, which is a big IF, they need to start discussing the problems with the Supreme Court in public NOW - before it's too late.
@random****1645
2 hours ago
This is just horrible. They need to be held accountable for their actions.
@dinavanoy3230
9 hours ago
We should stop calling them "justices". There's nothing "just" about this band of miscreants.
@rebekahcuriel-alessi2239
11 hours ago
The majority of the SCOTUS isn't "conservative" but dishonest.
@luvnpossibilities
8 hours ago This is exactly why the US history of SYSTEMIC RACISM being taught in our upper elementary, junior, and high schools ought to be mandatory.
CORRUPT US Supreme Court to Hear TRUMP Immunity Claim 25 APR
US Supreme Court to Hear High-Stakes TRUMP Immunity Claim Thu 25 APR
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday on whether Donald Trump, as a former president, should be immune from criminal prosecution for acts he committed while in office
MSRAW 23 APR 2024
The nine justices' ruling could have far-reaching implications for the extent of US executive power -- and Trump's own multiple legal issues as he seeks the White House again.
And while most constitutional law experts expect Trump to suffer a legal defeat, he may already have won a political victory.
By agreeing to take the case, the court delayed -- perhaps indefinitely -- the start of Trump's trial on charges of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden.
The question of whether an ex-president is immune from prosecution is an untested one in American jurisprudence because until Trump, a former White House occupant had never been charged with a crime.
"Famously, Richard Nixon engaged in criminal law-breaking," said James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University.
"But because he resigned, and (Nixon's successor) Gerald Ford then pardoned him, we have never had to squarely address the notion of a criminal prosecution against a former president."
Special Counsel Jack Smith filed the election conspiracy case against the 77-year-old Trump in August and had been pushing hard for a March start date for the trial.
But Trump's lawyers filed a blizzard of motions seeking to postpone the case against the Republican presidential candidate, including the claim that a former president enjoys "absolute immunity" from prosecution.
Two lower courts flatly rejected that argument but the Supreme Court, which includes three justices nominated by Trump, agreed in late February to hear the case.
In one ruling, a lower court said Trump's immunity claim is "unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution."
"We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter," the judges said.
- 'Jack Smith 1, Donald Trump 0' -
Sample and other legal scholars said the Supreme Court was unlikely to hold that a president enjoys blanket immunity from prosecution.
"I find it hard to believe that even this very, very conservative, very pro-Trump Supreme Court will be inclined to find in favor of an argument that says a president is completely immune, basically, no matter what he does.
"That would be a holding that would be subject to abuse by presidents of all parties.
"I think the scoreboard will read Jack Smith 1, Donald Trump 0," Sample said, adding "the election year calendar will be of greater consequence."
Steven Schwinn, a University of Illinois Chicago law professor, agreed.
"Even if the court hands Trump a decisive, unqualified defeat, the prosecution will have to scramble to get the trial before the (November) election," he said.
Randall Eliason, a former US attorney who teaches law at George Washington University, said the unique circumstances surrounding the case would justify a quick decision by the Supreme Court, although the justices may wait until the end of their current term in June to issue a ruling.
"We've never before had a situation where a defendant would potentially have the chance to cancel his own prosecution if he wins reelection," Eliason said.
"The people have a right to have these criminal charges tried, and if Trump is reelected, there's a chance they will never be tried."
Arguing for immunity, Trump has said that without it "a president will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America."
Smith rebuffed that argument in a filing with the Supreme Court.
"The President's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general right to violate them," he said.
Trump also faces 2020 election charges in Georgia and has been indicted in Florida for allegedly mishandling classified information after leaving the White House.
Opening arguments began at his trial in New York on Monday on state charges of falsifying business records by paying pre-2016 election "hush money" to a porn star.
CROOKED Supreme Court Delays AGAIN Immunity Decision to Help TRUMP
Supreme Court Seems Skeptical of Trumps' Claim of Absolute Immunity But Decisions' Timing is Unclear
The case might have to be sent back to lower courts before any trial could begin
AP 25 APR 2024
The Supreme Court on Thursday appeared likely to reject former President Donald Trumps claim of absolute immunity from prosecution over election interference, but it seemed possible Trump could still benefit from a lengthy trial delay, possibly beyond November’s election.
Chief Justice John Roberts was among at least five members of the court who did not appear to embrace the claim of absolute immunity that would stop special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump on charges he conspired to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
But in arguments lasting more than 2 1/2 hours in the court's first consideration of criminal charges against a former president, Roberts also was among several justices who suggested that the case might have to be sent back to lower courts before any trial could begin.
Roberts indicated he was unhappy with the reasoning adopted by the federal appeals court that ruled against Trump.
The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision could be as important as the outcome. Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has been pushing to delay the trial until after the election, and the later the justices issue their decision, the more likely he is to succeed.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two of Trump's three high court appointees, suggested that former presidents might have some immunity and that in this case, lower courts might have to sort out whether that applied to Trump. That could further delay a trial.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the other Trump appointee, seemed less open to arguments advanced by Trump lawyer D. John Sauer.
Smith’s team is asking for a speedy resolution. The court typically issues its last opinions by the end of June, about four months before the election.
Trump, the first former president charged with crimes, had said he wanted to be at the Supreme Court on Thursday. Instead, he was in a courtroom in New York, where he is standing trial on charges that he falsified business records to keep damaging information from voters when he directed hush money payments to a former porn star to keep quiet her claims that they had a sexual encounter.
Trump’s lawyers argue that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for their official acts. Otherwise, they say, politically motivated prosecutions of former occupants of the Oval Office would become routine and presidents couldn't function as the commander in chief if they had to worry about criminal charges.
Lower courts have rejected those arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on an appeals court in Washington, D.C.
The election interference conspiracy case brought by Smith in Washington is just one of four criminal cases confronting Trump.
Smith’s team says the men who wrote Constitution never intended for presidents to be above the law and that, in any event, the acts Trump is charged with — including participating in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Biden — aren’t in any way part of a president’s official duties.
Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records. That case played out during Trump’s presidency and involved a criminal investigation, but no charges.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who would have prevented the enforcement of the subpoena because of Trump’s responsibilities as president, still rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity and pointed to the text of the Constitution and how it was understood by the people who ratified it.
“The text of the Constitution … does not afford the President absolute immunity,” Thomas wrote in 2020.
The lack of apparent support on the court for the sort of blanket immunity Trump seeks has caused commentators to speculate about why the court has taken up the case in the first place.
Phillip Bobbitt, a constitutional scholar at Columbia University’s law school, said he worries about the delay, but sees value in a decision that amounts to “a definitive expression by the Supreme Court that we are a government of laws and not of men.”
The court also may be more concerned with how its decision could affect future presidencies, Harvard law school professor Jack Goldsmith wrote on the Lawfare blog.
But Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the court never should have taken the case because an ideologically diverse panel of the federal appeals court in Washington adequately addressed the issues.
“If it was going to take the case, it should have proceeded faster, because now, it will most likely prevent the trial from being completed before the election,” Roosevelt said. “Even Richard Nixon said that the American people deserve to know whether their president is a crook. The Supreme Court seems to disagree.”
The court has several options for deciding the case. The justices could reject Trump's arguments and unfreeze the case so that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan can resume trial preparations, which she has indicated may last up to three months.
The court could end Smiths' prosecution by declaring for the first time that former presidents may not be prosecuted for official acts they took while in office.
It also might spell out when former presidents are shielded for prosecution and either declare that Trump's alleged conduct easily crossed the line or return the case to Chutkan so that she can decide whether Trump should have to stand trial.... END
Not Going to Happen: Why Supreme Court Won't Bite TRUMPs' Bait
Not Going to Happen: Ex-FBI Agent Explains Why Supreme Court Won't Bite TRUMPs' Bait
A lot of legal experts appeared worried after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Donald Trump's immunity case, but there's no way the right-wing justices are going to buy all of what the former president is selling, a former FBI agent said on Saturday.
MSRAW 28 APR 2024
Former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa weighed in on the Supreme Court hearing, pointing out the novelty of Trump's absolute presidential immunity argument that would see an ex-president avoid any charges as long as they weren't convicted at an impeachment trial.
"I don’t know who needs to hear this, but the requirement that a POTUS needs to be impeached and convicted before being prosecuted is something literally no one ever argued until Trump," she said on social media. "Apart from the fact that this claim grossly misreads the Impeachment Clause, the conservative justices won’t bite because it undercuts the very theory of almost unlimited presidential power to which they subscribe."
She continued:
"To wit, it would place POTUS’ power to enforce the laws against former presidents at the mercy of Congress. Not going to happen (and none of them explored this in oral argument, it was too dumb even for them I guess)."
Political and legal commentator Allison Gill, better known as "Mueller, She Wrote," noted that right-wing justice Amy Coney Barrett used "the 'clear statement of Congress' idiocy to undercut the impeachment judgement clause ridiculousness."
Gill explained:
"She asked [Trump lawyer John] Sauer: 'Special Counsel makes a great point that if [Trump] were impeached and convicted, that he could be prosecuted after impeachment, right?' Sauer: 'Yes.' Barrett:
'But you also say these statutes don't apply to him because he’s not explicitly mentioned, so how can you say he'd be subject to prosecution after impeachment if these statutes don't apply to him?'"
__________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP..........................
TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING
PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1..
THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES
Not Going to Happen: Why Supreme Court Won't Bite TRUMPs' Bait
PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL
1.. 
Linear Mode
