SCOTUS will hear Trump's IMMUNITY claim over criminal election interference charges

[scruffy]

yeah but we all know how that turned out

Trumps only out is if he just says he is no longer running for president and then the case is closed.

Then he can also claim that he is not a crook

LMAO

Leftards are really weird.

The stuff that passed for logic is... well... weird.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Biden will be sued for failing to enforce the law

Presidents have been sued before. So what?

 

[Kilroy2]

LMAO

Leftards are really weird.

The stuff that passed for logic is... well... weird.

Its better than no logic

 

[scruffy]

Its better than no logic

No, it isn't.

 

[scruffy]

Presidents have been sued before. So what?

So what, he says.

Typical fucking leftard.

Okay hot shot, give us an example.

Which president was sued?

 

[Kilroy2]

No, it isn't.

So what, he says.

Typical fucking leftard.

Okay hot shot, give us an example.

Which president was sued?

Better question which president has been indicted for crimes while in the white house

 

[Natural Citizen]

This was deliberately decided to lock the GOP nomination with Trump.

The trial will conclude before elections, if SCOTUS sides with Smith, which it will

This is gonna be a once in a lefetime case for these SC judges. And it's a case that will more than likely never come to the SC again.

So they're gonna want to leave their mark on history and the constitution with this one.

If they come back with a no immunity ruling, then every president from here on out will be subject to prosecution or blackmail after leaving office.

I think they rule in Trump's favor on this one.

 

[john doe 101]

Remember when "election interference" was a Russia thing?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Now it's the subverted Marxist DNC.
It's like (is) a cold civil war, really.
The IRONY of charging Trump with election interference is off the charts!

This discussion is way above your intelligence level. Stick to your dumb meme's and calling people Marxist's you dumb fuck.

 

[scruffy]

Better question which president has been indicted for crimes while in the white house

Deflection by a clueless leftard.

Not surprised in the least.

Answer the fucking question, if you can.

 

[pknopp]

ILMAO. He's not going to be found guilty, and even if a left-court finds him guilty, long after the election, they'll lose in appeal or supreme court. Your kind made it up. OP wants to suggest stall tactics, everything the left are doing right now is worse than that.

We've heard this over and over but then Trump doesn't get "found innocent".

 

[Care4all]

This is gonna be a once in a lefetime case for these SC judges. And it's a case that will more than likely never come to the SC again.

So they're gonna want to leave their mark on history and the constitution with this one.

If they come back with a no immunity ruling, then every president from here on out will be subject to prosecution or blackmail after leaving office.

I think they rule in Trump's favor on this one.

Fyi

This case is not about presidents having immunity when doing their job as president and making presidential decisions. They always have immunity in those presidential circumstances.

This case is about whether a President has immunity, when he is doing a NON Presidential act as well....
like when he is campaigning, which has nothing to do with presidential duties.... Or, if he were to shoot a stranger on 5th Avenue.... Or kill his wife.... Or kill his opponent.

Trump is saying that as president, he and all presidents have presidential immunity for every crime he may do, including murdering someone, robbing a bank, inciting a riot, raping your wife, etc etc etc

Which is simply not the case!

 

[SeaMajor7]

This discussion is way above your intelligence level. Stick to your dumb meme's and calling people Marxist's you dumb fuck.

Care to expound on that declaration there, tough nuts?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Fyi

This case is not about presidents having immunity when doing their job as president and making presidential decisions. They always have immunity in those presidential circumstances.

This case is about whether a President has immunity, when he is doing a NON Presidential act as well....
like when he is campaigning, which has nothing to do with presidential duties.... Or, if he were to shoot a stranger on 5th Avenue.... Or kill his wife.... Or kill his opponent.

Trump is saying that as president, he and all presidents have presidential immunity for every crime he may do, including murdering someone, robbing a bank, inciting a riot, raping your wife, etc etc etc

Which is simply not the case!

I think that EO 13848 will definitely come up in discussion, C4all.

Section 1 specifically and considering those foreign owned machines.

Just by the fact that the question was begged puts him into official capacity territory and within the window that the EO covers.

We shall see, I suppose.

We can make a bet, I guess.

If you win, I have to jog around the block ten times.

If I win, you've gotta show me your boobies.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The courts will not save Mr. Trump.

They are pushing the resolution to the elections by We the People, which the courts cannot and will not touch the findings.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This is gonna be a once in a lefetime case for these SC judges. And it's a case that will more than likely never come to the SC again.

So they're gonna want to leave their mark on history and the constitution with this one.

If they come back with a no immunity ruling, then every president from here on out will be subject to prosecution or blackmail after leaving office.

I think they rule in Trump's favor on this one.

I think you are wrong. Thanks for the polite reply. We will know by June.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So what, he says.

Typical fucking leftard.

Okay hot shot, give us an example.

Which president was sued?

Besides your orange god?
Besides Biden being sued right now?

 

[JimH52]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity over criminal election interference charges, adding a new hurdle to a trial taking place.

The court in a brief order said it would hear arguments and issue a ruling on the immunity claim. In the meantime, the case is on hold, meaning no trial can take place.

The order said the court would hear the case the week of April 22.

The case could take months to resolve.

Even if Trump loses, the trial would not take place until well into election season. If Trump were to win in a ruling, the charges would be dismissed.

More at the link below...

Supreme Court to consider Trump immunity claim in further delay of election interference trial

Even if the justices ultimately rule against Trump, the court’s intervention puts the trial’s start date in question.

www.nbcnews.com

This should be a no-brainer - but we'll see. Another stalling tactic for Trump. What do you think?

I think the implications of this decision are immense. Not since Bush v Gore has a decision had more political implications. Basically, the court if voting for trump.

At least one judge had to feel the case should be heard. I would wager that to be Thomas on orders from his wife. The man should not be on the case at all.

I hope voters see the naked partisanship of this ruling and vote to allow a trial to decide the fate of the man that incited J6. trump needs to answer in court.

 

[JimH52]

How in the world could anything think that Trump has "immunity" from leading an insurrection against the United States in an attempt to overthrow a presidential election to illegally keep himself in power. The voters chose Biden - not Trump.

His lawyers argued he could kill his political opponent and still have immunity. Just mind blowing...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Court will vote against immunity.

I think the majority believes in We the People, and they intend to 'make' We the People step up and vote against him or step out and vote for him.

Yes, this decision is titanic.

 

[WEATHER53]

I think the implications of this decision are immense. Not since Bush v Gore has a decision had more political implications. Basically, the court if voting for trump.

At least one judge had to feel the case should be heard. I would wager that to be Thomas on orders from his wife. The man should not be on the case at all.

I hope voters see the naked partisanship of this ruling and vote to allow a trial to decide the fate of the man that incited J6. trump needs to answer in court.

What we will see is that Trump cannot be charged in a manner no past President has Ever had to face. Much less when running fir reelection
It’s another lib loon politicized hoax and thats how it will be ruled