Posted on Dec 12, 2023
Supreme Court agrees to decide Trump immunity claim
3.12K
23
11
5
5
0
Posted 11 mo ago
Responses: 6
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
Washington Times - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibitsone or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
(1)
(0)
Patricia Overmeyer
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel - And the Washington Times totally has the procedural requirements backwards in that story. What the USSC has agreed to do is to expedite a review of the petition, not to actually hear/decide the case. In that case, there is only a requirement that four of the justices agree to review the petition. They set out a deadline for Trump's attorneys to file their response to Smith's motion next week. Then they will then decide if they will actually hear the case and if so, will it be expedited to hear and resolve.
This is pretty much like what happened in the US v Nixon case regarding the requirement that Nixon hand over documents, etc. on the Watergate conspiracy trial. Nixon refused to do so. The AG office went directly to the USSC and requested an expedited review and hearing on the case. After opposing counsel filed their response, the USSC voted and heard the case within a week after briefs were filed. After their opinion was handed down a week later, Nixon resigned.
This is pretty much like what happened in the US v Nixon case regarding the requirement that Nixon hand over documents, etc. on the Watergate conspiracy trial. Nixon refused to do so. The AG office went directly to the USSC and requested an expedited review and hearing on the case. After opposing counsel filed their response, the USSC voted and heard the case within a week after briefs were filed. After their opinion was handed down a week later, Nixon resigned.
(3)
(0)
I understand that Trump supporters want the SCOTUS to side with him, but the bigger implication is that IF they do side with him, the SCOTUS will have declared that any President is above the law (to include Biden). That could set the stage for Biden preventing Trump from retaking power if Trump wins the 2024 election. Huge implications here.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
I don't follow how that could happen. Wishful thinking? Are you conceding 2024 to Trump? What special powers would Biden have to prevent it? At least four Justices felt the issue was important enough to give a look, only one more and Trump has his victory.
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
MAJ Montgomery Granger - You don't follow how that if a President can be immune from prosecution, especially for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power, that another President won't also feel emboldened to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power? If you don't see that, I can't help you.
And, four judges agreed to review the case. That doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with Trump's argument. It just means they think the matter is important enough to quickly resolve. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
And, four judges agreed to review the case. That doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with Trump's argument. It just means they think the matter is important enough to quickly resolve. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
(2)
(0)
"Nothing could be more vital to our democracy than that a President who abuses the electoral system to remain in office is held accountable for criminal conduct,” Mr. Smith wrote.'
HMMmmm?
HMMmmm?
(2)
(0)
Read This Next