The court’s members gave a mixed reading to observers….
The three left leaning justices seemed to be a firm no immunity….
The right leaners seem to looking for some leeway for the ex-President’s goals….
Two or Three seem to be leaning against total immunity…..
Guessing is there could be a 5-4 or even a 6-3 decision granting a President immunity ONLY for official acts…
The question off of that ?
What ARE/Where Donald Trump’s official act’s after the November 2020 election?…
The problem for the Special Counsel Smith is TIME….
The court COULD come back and throw the terms of a decision BACK to the Appeal’s Court….
THAT would give Trump what he wants from the jump….
TIME…..
He simply wants the 6 months until the Election…
A win?
Means he could, as President, order HIS Justice Dept to withdraw ANY Federal criminal case against HIM….
The court’s justices ARE worried that they need to make decision’s that would codify a US President’s code of criminality , something the Constitution and Congress won’t do….
THAT IS NOT what this actual case is about….
The case IS can ex-President Trump be tried by a jury for his action’s…
That IS on Hold due to the court….
It IS NOT about setting a historic policy, indictments have ALREADY happened….
Over a 100 people have been convicted FOR THEIR action’s….
Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6.
Why it matters: The court heard more than two hours of oral arguments today over Trump’s assertion that former presidents cannot be prosecuted, even after leaving office, for actions they took while in office.
- A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.
- A majority of the justices seemed inclined to rule that former presidents must have at least some protection from criminal charges, but not necessarily the “absolute immunity” Trump is seeking.
- The most likely outcome might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.
What they’re saying: Trump is asserting one of the most sweeping theories of presidential power ever articulated.
- His lawyer, John Sauer, told the justices that a former president couldn’t face criminal charges — even if he had a political rival assassinated — unless he had been impeached and convicted by the Senate.
The core distinction during oral arguments came down to a president’s official vs. unofficial actions — and which of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results were official vs. unofficial….
Note….
From my common sense point of view….
This IS REALLY stupid….
BEING President is NOT being KING….
No OTHER place on Earth allows the head of the Government to go rogue in breaking laws NO OTHER Americans Can….
Some Lawyers working as Supreme Court Justices seem to be leaning into granting a man, who swore on a bible to follow the law, the ability to BRAKE the law at Will…
Trump’s lawyer equivocates on the legality of a President ordering his predecessor KILLED something POLITICAL…
…
“There is no immunity that is in the Constitution, unless this Court creates it today,” said Dreeben, a former deputy solicitor general who in that role has argued cases before the court more than 100 times.
Because Trump is the first former president to face criminal prosecution, the justices do not have many past cases to look to for guidance. Trump’s lawyers urged the court to expand on a 1982 decision in a case involving President Richard Nixon. A divided court recognized “absolute presidential immunity” from private civil lawsuits for “acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”
But that case did not address criminal liability. The special counsel’s office has pointed to a different decision involving Nixon from 1974. In that case, a unanimous court refused to “sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process,” and said Nixon had to comply with a subpoena for tapes of his White House conversations….