SCOTUS: Trump Asks Supremes To Grant Him Complete Immunity
Issue before or regarding the Supreme Court of The United States

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

searcher

morning
Moderator
Benefactor
Messages
24,221
Reaction score
4,443
Points
288

Trump heads to US Supreme Court with a familiar claim: He is untouchable​

February 5, 202412:14 PM EST

WASHINGTON, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Donald Trump will try to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court this week to reverse a judicial decision to kick him off the ballot in Colorado over his actions concerning the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, arguing that the constitutional provision his opponents cite does not apply to him as a former president.

It may not be the only time Trump makes this type of assertion to the justices. As he fights four criminal cases and civil litigation in lower courts, Trump has repeatedly advanced a bold argument: that he is formally immune or otherwise not subject to these legal challenges.

"Trump appears obsessed with trying to place himself above the law. The theme running throughout these claims is that he cannot be held liable at law for anything he has done," said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor. "No president or former president has made such outlandish, self-serving claims."

The Supreme Court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three Trump appointees, on Thursday is scheduled to hear Trump's appeal of a ruling by Colorado's top court that disqualified him from the state's Republican primary ballot under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment for engaging in insurrection. He is the frontrunner for his party's nomination to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election.

More:

 
Thursday's argument will be broadcast live. Should be interesting to hear.
 

“Disenfranchisement and Chaos”: The Supreme Court Hears Pivotal Case on Whether Trump Is Eligible to Run for President​

On Feb. 8, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson et al, a case that could swing a presidential election in a way not seen since Bush v. Gore a quarter-century earlier.

The crux of Trump v. Anderson boils down to this: Should a former commander in chief be disqualified from seeking the presidency again if he engaged in insurrection?

The answer to that question — and even the premise of the question itself — has sparked furious debates among lawyers, law professors and historians. Many of those disputes revolve around two contested subjects: the definition of insurrection, and the true meaning of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

More:

 
Funny thing about this precedent setting 'no immunity' claim...

Trump saw all the evidence of the prior POTUS'... he probably made copies - after all, that WAS what the Mar A Lago raid was all about... they were looking to see exactly what Trump had on them.

What you bet he moved all that off shore someplace safe?

The prior POTUS' are all civilians now with NO immunity.. Obama murdered a US citizen over seas. Bush got us into Iraq wars killing thousands. Clinton bombed an aspirin factory...

Murder, has no statute of limitations....
 
A few issues:

- He has not been tried let alone convicted of any sort of crime even remotely associated with the shitshow three years ago.
- Even if he was found guilty by the 'roo courts, he did it during the last days of his presidency.
- The only way to deal with such actions during his term would be via the impeachment process.
 
Goldhedge said:
Funny thing about this precedent setting 'no immunity' claim...
Click to expand...

chieftain said:
The only way to deal with such actions during his term would be via the impeachment process.
Click to expand...

Tomorrow Trump goes before the court to argue that he should be kept on the ballot in Colorado.

As for the immunity stuff he has until Monday to file that with the supreme court. From what I've heard and read, the judgement by the dc circuit said that no matter what he could be held accountable because he committed crimes. If you haven't already read it, you can read the actual judgement here https://www.washingtonpost.com/docu....pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_3&source=pmbug.com .

I have no clue what the SCOTUS will do but it looks like they have 3 options.

- Refuse to deal with it by saying the dc circuit got it right which would allow the Jan 6th trial to start asap.
- Decide to take it up on an expedited basis.
- Decided to take it up on a regular schedule.

I guess we'll find out next week.

In the meantime I've read he may try to pull the "I've got immunity act" in the docs case. If he actually does that it will be interesting to see what the judge does.


Goldhedge said:
What you bet he moved all that off shore someplace safe?
Click to expand...

Really don't know anything about this, but I think he has all sorts of dirt on a shit load of congress creatures, ex-presidents and a host of others stashed away somewhere. Wouldn't surprise me if he hasn't already used some of it to get certain people to do his bidding. Remember the 2016 election. At first Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz had all sorts of shit to say about Trump. Now they literally kiss his ass. I honestly believe he has some really good dirt on them. But it goes way deeper than them.

This will probably sound a bit crazy to you, but I think a lot of the dirt files he may have probably came from the Russians. That I whole heartedly believe is possible.

Then again...............this is just me thinking out loud. No proof, nothing to base it on. Just conjecture. Watched a lot of spy movies and read a lot of spy stories. Maybe they rubbed off on me
 
Hard to say how it's going. Lot of legal arguments about past cases I know nothing about.

Edit to add:

Clarence Thomas seems like he's not interested in hearing anything that paints Trump in a bad light. Not a good sign.
 
Last edited:
When did facts ever matter by getting in the way of a good prosecution?

You mean like Bill and Hillary did when they "suddenly found" 900 FBI records of Congress Critters in the White House? Or was it Tax records...? I forget....
 
Doesn't seem to be going well for the good guys.

Edit: Kavanaugh's true colors shing through.
 
Last edited:
Now we wait and see. My money is on Trump staying on the ballot.
 
Remember how the "Trumpeters" often said that, if nothing else during his presidency, at least he got to appoint the three SCOTUS judges, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett? and that, thank God, Hillary wasn't president because her three picks would have been so damn horrible?

How freaking ironic would it be if SCOTUS shot him down now?
 
Funny how Eric Holder couldn't be tried for the weapons smuggling to gangs in Mexico because he declared he had presidential immunity. Of course immunity only applies to the left.
 
One of the things the supremes brought up was that if they went along with Colorado what would stop any other state from getting rid of anyone on their ballot they didn't like. I agree with this.

I think they should go against Colorado in this case but go against Trump as to immunity (this Monday.)

A bit off topic but I've been thinking about Trump's lawyers contacting Biden about a pardon for all the Federal stuff if Trump gets outta politics. Would be the best thing all around.
 

Trump seeks Supreme Court intervention in election subversion case​

Feb. 12, 2024, 4:34 PM EST

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump on Monday filed a last-ditch request at the Supreme Court seeking to prevent his prosecution for attempting to overturn the 2020 election from moving closer to trial.

Trump asked the justices to put on hold an appeals court ruling that rejected his broad claim of presidential immunity in relation to events leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The court should block the ruling to "forestall, once again, an unprecedented and unacceptable departure from ordinary appellate procedures and allow President Trump's claim of immunity to be decided in the ordinary course of justice," Trump's lawyers wrote in the filing.

"President Trump’s claim that Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts presents a novel, complex, and momentous question that warrants careful consideration on appeal," they added.

More:

Trump seeks Supreme Court intervention in federal election subversion case

Former President Donald Trump is turning to the justices in a last-ditch effort to prevent his prosecution in the federal election interference case from moving closer to trial.
www.nbcnews.com
 
Not news, opinions.

Cato Scholars on Section 3 Disqualification​

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment bars from “office…under the United States” any person who, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” Does this clause bar Donald Trump from the presidency, and if not, is the deficiency factual, legal, or both? Who can make a legally effective determination of disqualification? How much weight should we give concerns that a disqualification restricts democratic choice? Is it proper for the Supreme Court in reviewing the question to take into account likely public reactions or risks of political unrest, and assuming it is, what reactions or risks should we anticipate?

We at Cato join in supporting certain values such as reason, individual liberty, and limited government, but are not expected to all reach the same conclusions when it comes to questions of application, especially when the questions as here are novel, complex, and dependent on historical scholarship. In that spirit, here is a listing in reverse chronological order of some writings by Cato scholars taking a variety of views on Section 3 questions.

More:

 
From the link:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In a one-page unsigned order, the justices ordered a federal appeals court to continue to keep on hold its ruling rejecting Trump’s claims of immunity from prosecution, and they fast-tracked the case for oral argument in late April.

Supreme Court takes up Trump immunity appeal - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In a one-page unsigned order, the justices ordered a federal appeals court to continue to keep on hold its ruling rej
www.scotusblog.com
 
That's a good thing. There should be real due process for something that important.
 
pmbug said:
That's a good thing. There should be real due process for something that important.
Click to expand...
Section three doesn't even apply to the potus.

It's only through twists of logic and law, by those out to get Trump, that it might even seem to apply.

The potus isn't an "officer of the United States" as used in the Amendment.

An "officer of the United States" is a functionary OF the executive, not the executive himself.
 

Supreme Court Makes STUNNING ADMISSION in Order​

Mar 7, 2024

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress and only Congress can pass laws and procedure to bar “insurrectionists ” like Trump from federal office, the next Congress must set up “insurrection” tribunals or delegate it to the DOJ to handle. Michael Popok explains how the Court acknowledged in writing that they played “politics” with the ruling and how the voters can play politics of their own, and fire back and fix the issue in November.

17:53
 
This one is an opinion piece from Meidas Touch concerning the Colorado ballot ruling. No need to watch, can just listen. If you listen, take it fwiw.

Supreme Court Ruling as MAJOR IMPLICATIONS it CAN’T CONTROL​

On the Legal AF podcast, defense attorney Michael Popok and former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo debate what happens next now that the United States Supreme Court has written out of existence the 14th Amendment Section 3 insurrectionist ban provision, and what does the new court ruling mean for the Court’s future decision about whether Trump has immunity from state and federal prosecution.

20:50
 
Goldhedge said:
It stands to reason that the POTUS (no matter which one) has complete immunity.

As Trump has pointed, out nobody would take the job.
Click to expand...

Was kinda busy doing paperwork stuff but listened to it as background noise. No clue as to which way they'll rule. Have to wait and see.
 
Trump wins 6-3.
It has to be that way. If they take away presidential immunity then line up all the former presidents and start the trials. IMO they should all be tried anyway but they committed actual crimes.
 

Judge Luttig Has MAJOR QUESTION for Supreme Court​

May 4, 2024

Former federal appellate Judge Luttig joins Legal AF’s Michael Popok for a no holds barred discussion as to whether the Supreme Court is encouraging Trump to self-pardon or President Biden to pardon Trump in order to delay their decision on the immunity issue.

16:11
 
It's so nice that DOJ decided on their own that Obama's drone murders were fine and decided not to prosecute. My guess is that the family members of the innocent civilians that were murdered might beg to differ.
Then the same DOJ decides to prosecute this president for BS claims. Lets not forget that Trump did request NG for Jan 6th and was refused by Pelosi which makes this all seem like a set up.
 
The robed ones have added an extra decision day to this week's calendar. Maybe...........

How the Supreme Court could decide Trump’s blockbuster fight for immunity​

The Supreme Court’s most closely watched dispute this year – a case questioning whether former President Donald Trump may claim immunity from federal election subversion charges – also has the potential to be one of the hardest to parse for meaning in real time.

In between Trump’s initial demand for total immunity and an appeals court ruling earlier this year that found he’s entitled to no protection at all is a murky gap with massive practical implications for whether he can be tried before the November election.

At issue is special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election, including with his actions on January 6, 2021, though the court’s decision could have implications for other criminal cases against Trump as well. In addition to the bottom line ruling about whether Trump is immune from prosecution could be important clues about how quickly the matter will go to trial.

More:

 

What the Hell Is Going on With the Supreme Court’s Trump Ruling?​

The Supreme Court released a slew of new rulings on Friday morning, but, once again, none of them included the decision weighing heaviest on Americans’ minds—whether Donald Trump should be granted king-like immunity for his criminal indictments.

Friday marks 114 days since the case was accepted by the high court—an inexcusable amount of time to rule on something so consequential to the country, a top legal expert tells The Daily Beast.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, said Friday it’s clear that the Supreme Court, which has operated with a comfortable conservative majority since Trump’s presidency, is doing the ex-president’s bidding.

More:

 
MSNBC opinion piece / talking points.

'Get ready for a big mess': Supreme Court's Trump immunity decision expected next week​

Jun 22, 2024 #Trump #SCOTUS #TrumpImmunity

The Supreme Court has waited months to rule on Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity, helping him avoid more criminal trials during his campaign. Former Supreme Court clerk Leah Litman and Slate Senior Writer Mark Joseph Stern share what's ahead when the Justices finally respond to Trump's "outlandish" arguments.

10:38
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…