Sorry. Working.

I’m in hour 3 of 7 hours of meetings today.

My wife went and picked up some Greek food for me so I can eat at my desk.

Donald Trump’s Immunity Case: What to Know as Supreme Court Hears Arguments
Blockbuster case connected to Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Capitol puts justices in hot seat during election year


WSJ
Since federal prosecutors charged Donald Trump last year with plotting to overturn the 2020 election results, the former president has argued that he enjoys broad immunity for actions he took while in the White House. After months of legal wrangling, the Supreme Court takes up the question Thursday, in a case with profound legal consequences as well as political ramifications, including whether Trump will face a federal trial this fall while in the stretch run of the presidential campaign.

Here’s what you should know.

What are the charges Trump is facing?
In a four-count indictment brought by special counsel Jack Smith, Trump was charged with conspiring to subvert the will of voters by propounding false claims of election fraud and organizing fake slates of electors. His conspiracies “culminated and converged” on Jan. 6, 2021, prosecutors said, when Trump sought to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory.

Each of the conspiracies, prosecutors said, “targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.” The indictment charged Trump alone but referred to six alleged co-conspirators, including allies identifiable as Rudy Giuliani and several other lawyers who helped Trump contest his loss. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Trump’s lawyers have emphasized the president’s singular role in the American system of government, arguing that the commander in chief can’t function with the specter of potential criminal prosecution for official acts.

“To ensure the President may serve unhesitatingly, without fear that his political opponents may one day prosecute him for decisions they dislike, the law provides absolute immunity,” his lawyers argue in court papers.

In response, Smith’s team argues that Trump’s sweeping view of immunity runs contrary to the fundamental principle that no one is above the law. In an earlier hearing on Trump’s immunity claims, one government lawyer said it would be “awfully scary” if there were no criminal mechanism to address a future president’s attempt to subvert the electoral system.

Lower courts have sided with the government. In December, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Trump’s status as a former president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”

When will the Supreme Court rule, and what does that mean for a trial date?
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by late June. If the court rejects Trump’s immunity claim and allows the prosecution to proceed, a trial in Washington could likely begin about three months later, potentially setting the stage for proceedings as voters go to the polls.

If the high court finds a way to rule earlier, that could raise the chances of a verdict coming before Election Day.

“It’s not just a question of what the court will say but also when the court will say it,” said Tara Leigh Grove, a University of Texas law professor.

A number of pretrial matters were already resolved by Judge Chutkan before the immunity battle led her to put her preparations on hold.

“There is a national interest in seeing the crimes alleged in this case resolved promptly,” the special counsel’s office said in a filing with the Supreme Court.

If Trump wins, what does that mean for the other prosecutions he faces?
If the Supreme Court surprises legal observers by ruling broadly for Trump, his prosecution on federal election interference charges would come to an end. The decision could also have immediate ripple effects.

In Georgia, Trump would try to use the ruling to seek dismissal of state racketeering charges brought by the Fulton County district attorney related to Trump and his allies’ efforts to overturn the state’s 2020 election results.

In the two other prosecutions, the ramifications of a Trump win would be less clear.

Trump’s federal prosecution in Florida centers largely on the period after his presidency, alleging that he hoarded a trove of sensitive records at his private club and residence after leaving the White House, and then obstructed the government’s efforts to retrieve those documents.

In Manhattan, Trump is currently on trial on charges that he falsified business records to cover up hush money paid to the porn actress Stormy Daniels in the run-up to the 2016 election. While the underlying payment happened when Trump was a private citizen, the alleged falsifications came after he was in the White House.

Will the Supreme Court simply rule up or down on whether presidents have criminal immunity?
Not necessarily. While the high court could rule broadly on the immunity question, it could also fashion a legal standard for assessing whether certain official conduct falls in or outside the realm of prosecution.

That could leave the lower courts with work to do—and, in Trump’s case, require Chutkan to make further rulings.

It is possible the Supreme Court wants to craft an opinion more nuanced than lower courts that rejected Trump’s immunity claims, said the George Washington University law professor Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor.

“That could result in more delay if the case then goes back to Judge Chutkan and she has to hear arguments and make findings about whether or not particular acts in the indictment are subject to immunity,” he said.

The prosecution has as many hard facts against Trump for racketeering and attempting to overturn an election as Trump’s team had for most of their claims of voter fraud. Whatever the outcome, it should be cold, hard facts that determine the resolution. Conjecture and all of these stories of what is possible or what anyone is thinking about doing or would have done should be flushed down the crapper. Let’s deal with the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.

Way to go Joetard!

=d>


The SCOTUS was made to look like a gaggle of raving morons (well the Lefties for sure!) arguing hypotheticals and utter nonsense back patting for doing it. Joetard's Einstein like brainiac Ketanji Brown Jackson is as dumb as Biden. Thank you for that display of lunacy. Bull Kagan tapdanced on the stupid as well.

What I was able to surmise is there isn't much of a case for them to be talking in these make-believe scenarios. Dipped in innuendo and fabrication designed to inflict damage, but I think it's the SCOTUS that has the Executive Branch's balls in their hands. They can with this decision (if they want) limit the powers and clip them so far back it would be decades if ever they got them back! All of this for what? Mean tweets and spray tans? Look, you can hate on the guy all you want but they never charged him with insurrection or revolution. The man while President donated his salary to veteran causes, didn't get us tied down with another war, used the military like it should...a scalpel that cuts deep, wide and continuous and onto the next, our economy before the Angel of Death Dr. Fauci released his bioweapon on the planet was chugging on all cylinders, we were exporting energy and the DEI lunacy was held in check with sensible leadership. Pedo Joe danced about being a Uniter on Day 1 and has this nation a match strike away from Civil War. Way to keep on stirring crap up and deflecting on the crimes the Biden Family has committed while the media peddles their orders on the general public like they're facts about Trump. Sickening. Total waste of time. As a nation we could actually be doing something constructive, but this criminal father of a crackhead is donating your Social Security retirement funds to Ukraine so he can get his 10% kickback.

Sorry Robert...I tried to follow this at home. It was just laughable and sickening. Where was I wrong?

Not really any questions of fact here so no court has to discern the truth to make its decision. They solely have to decide what the law is- that's it. Full immunity, partial immunity, or no immunity at all.

Trump didn't say that Tina Fey.

Yes he did

In NYC

FILMED ON CAMERA

Please tell me where we can all find it together.

You got me there. Perjury isn’t a thing anymore.