Liberal Forum

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised a question Thursday that goes to the heart of Special Counsel Jack Smith's charges against former President Trump...
The high court was considering Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while President, but another issue is whether Jack Smith and the Office of Special Counsel have the authority to bring charges at all.  Thomas asked:
"Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of THE special counsel?"

... the same point was raised by BOTH previous Attorney Generals Meese and Mukasey in prior comments regarding the case... and Trump attorney John Sauer told Justice Thomas that, "we totally agree with the analysis provided by Attorney General Meese [III] and Attorney General Mukasey." !!

"It points to a very important issue here because one of [the special counsel's] arguments is, of course, that we should have this presumption of regularity. That runs into the reality that we have here an extraordinary prosecutorial power being exercised by someone who was never nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate at any time. So we agree with that position. We hadn't raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal," Sauer said.

THAT could be GAME, SET, and MATCH !!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justic ... tion-trump

Jack Smith can't be a Special Counsel, he's not eligible.

28 CFR § 600.3
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.

Jack Smith was an employee of the DoJ and part of the Biden misAdministration, and therefore was not eligible to be made Special Counsel. 

golfboy » 27 Apr 2024, 9:27 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2024, 9:27 pm

Jack Smith can't be a Special Counsel, he's not eligible.

28 CFR § 600.3
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.

Jack Smith was an employee of the DoJ and part of the Biden misAdministration, and therefore was not eligible to be made Special Counsel.

       
 

ConservativeWave » 27 Apr 2024, 6:02 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2024, 6:02 pm

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised a question Thursday that goes to the heart of Special Counsel Jack Smith's charges against former President Trump...
The high court was considering Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while President, but another issue is whether Jack Smith and the Office of Special Counsel have the authority to bring charges at all.  Thomas asked:
"Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of THE special counsel?"

... the same point was raised by BOTH previous Attorney Generals Meese and Mukasey in prior comments regarding the case... and Trump attorney John Sauer told Justice Thomas that, "we totally agree with the analysis provided by Attorney General Meese [III] and Attorney General Mukasey." !!

"It points to a very important issue here because one of [the special counsel's] arguments is, of course, that we should have this presumption of regularity. That runs into the reality that we have here an extraordinary prosecutorial power being exercised by someone who was never nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate at any time. So we agree with that position. We hadn't raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal," Sauer said.

THAT could be GAME, SET, and MATCH !!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justic ... tion-trump

 

https://constitution.findlaw.com/articl ... suits.html

ConservativeWave » 27 Apr 2024, 6:02 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2024, 6:02 pm

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised a question Thursday that goes to the heart of Special Counsel Jack Smith's charges against former President Trump...
The high court was considering Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while President, but another issue is whether Jack Smith and the Office of Special Counsel have the authority to bring charges at all.  Thomas asked:
"Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of THE special counsel?"

... the same point was raised by BOTH previous Attorney Generals Meese and Mukasey in prior comments regarding the case... and Trump attorney John Sauer told Justice Thomas that, "we totally agree with the analysis provided by Attorney General Meese [III] and Attorney General Mukasey." !!

"It points to a very important issue here because one of [the special counsel's] arguments is, of course, that we should have this presumption of regularity. That runs into the reality that we have here an extraordinary prosecutorial power being exercised by someone who was never nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate at any time. So we agree with that position. We hadn't raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal," Sauer said.

THAT could be GAME, SET, and MATCH !!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justic ... tion-trump

to grant total immunity for presidents would be to grant them kingshipment and the whole basis of the founding of the country was against having kings rule.   -------https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=c ... dpr=1.1--- it would be anti american and the death pin of what we know of as america and freedom.
 

ConservativeWave » 27 Apr 2024, 6:02 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2024, 6:02 pm

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised a question Thursday that goes to the heart of Special Counsel Jack Smith's charges against former President Trump...
The high court was considering Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while President, but another issue is whether Jack Smith and the Office of Special Counsel have the authority to bring charges at all.  Thomas asked:
"Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of THE special counsel?"

... the same point was raised by BOTH previous Attorney Generals Meese and Mukasey in prior comments regarding the case... and Trump attorney John Sauer told Justice Thomas that, "we totally agree with the analysis provided by Attorney General Meese [III] and Attorney General Mukasey." !!

"It points to a very important issue here because one of [the special counsel's] arguments is, of course, that we should have this presumption of regularity. That runs into the reality that we have here an extraordinary prosecutorial power being exercised by someone who was never nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate at any time. So we agree with that position. We hadn't raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal," Sauer said.

THAT could be GAME, SET, and MATCH !!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justic ... tion-trump

if presidents are granted total immunity they would be able to act in a manner no other american can... no threat of legal repercussions of any sort and they could have executions on the white house lawn with no judge or jury necessary.

Squatchman » 27 Apr 2024, 10:59 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2024, 10:59 pm

     

What are you laughing at, the law being ignored by Democrats?
Admittedly, that's nothing new, but I don't know why you consider it funny.
 

golfboy » 28 Apr 2024, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2024, 12:00 pm

What are you laughing at, the law being ignored by Democrats?
Admittedly, that's nothing new, but I don't know why you consider it funny.

exactly what law are you talking about?

golfboy » 28 Apr 2024, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2024, 12:00 pm

What are you laughing at, the law being ignored by Democrats?
Admittedly, that's nothing new, but I don't know why you consider it funny.

you want to change the whole structure of the country and make trump dictator, immune to any  law
 
 

Squatchman » 27 Apr 2024, 10:59 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Apr 2024, 10:59 pm

     

When you have NO INTELLIGENT COMMENT nor RATIONAL REPLY... LAUGH !! 

                     
 

jerrab » 28 Apr 2024, 10:37 am » wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2024, 10:37 am

to grant total immunity for presidents would be to grant them kingshipment and the whole basis of the founding of the country was against having kings rule.   -------https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=c ... dpr=1.1--- it would be anti american and the death pin of what we know of as america and freedom.
 

I don't think anyone is talking about TOTAL Immunity... HOWEVER, "NO IMMUNITY" would open the door to MORE IDIOTIC HARASSMENT of prior POTUS's, to the point that NO ONE would EVER want to run for, or HOLD, the office EVER again... OR, It WOULD OPEN THE DOOR for some UNSCRUPULOUS Individual or Party to be elected, and then ASSUME TOTAL DICTATORIAL POWER, using the excuse that the a President CAN NOT do the job otherwise !

I would expect, and it appears that the SCOTUS's are leaning toward...  a "LIMITED IMMUNITY"... and personally, I think THAT's the way to go... ONE way or another however... Trump would be CLEARED!  WHICH is just another indication of how STUPID, and DESPERATE, these DOJ and Democrat Party efforts to SMEAR Trump are !

THEY are a LOSING ... any way it shakes out !

ConservativeWave » 28 Apr 2024, 1:53 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2024, 1:53 pm

I don't think anyone is talking about TOTAL Immunity... HOWEVER, "NO IMMUNITY" would open the door to MORE IDIOTIC HARASSMENT of prior POTUS's, to the point that NO ONE would EVER want to run for, or HOLD, the office EVER again... OR, It WOULD OPEN THE DOOR for some UNSCRUPULOUS Individual or Party to be elected, and then ASSUME TOTAL DICTATORIAL POWER, using the excuse that the a President CAN NOT do the job otherwise !

I would expect, and it appears that the SCOTUS's are leaning toward...  a "LIMITED IMMUNITY"... and personally, I think THAT's the way to go... ONE way or another however... Trump would be CLEARED!  WHICH is just another indication of how STUPID, and DESPERATE, these DOJ and Democrat Party efforts to SMEAR Trump are !

THEY are a LOSING ... any way it shakes out !

presidential immunity is not even mentioned in the constitution yet many have ran for president in the past 250 years or so.





o

ConservativeWave » 28 Apr 2024, 1:53 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2024, 1:53 pm

I don't think anyone is talking about TOTAL Immunity... HOWEVER, "NO IMMUNITY" would open the door to MORE IDIOTIC HARASSMENT of prior POTUS's, to the point that NO ONE would EVER want to run for, or HOLD, the office EVER again... OR, It WOULD OPEN THE DOOR for some UNSCRUPULOUS Individual or Party to be elected, and then ASSUME TOTAL DICTATORIAL POWER, using the excuse that the a President CAN NOT do the job otherwise !

I would expect, and it appears that the SCOTUS's are leaning toward...  a "LIMITED IMMUNITY"... and personally, I think THAT's the way to go... ONE way or another however... Trump would be CLEARED!  WHICH is just another indication of how STUPID, and DESPERATE, these DOJ and Democrat Party efforts to SMEAR Trump are !

THEY are a LOSING ... any way it shakes out !

what woulld he be cleared of with limited immunity?

he wants total immunity.
 

jerrab » 28 Apr 2024, 3:07 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2024, 3:07 pm

what woulld he be cleared of with limited immunity?

he wants total immunity.

He would be cleared of ALL the charges he's been accused of... "instigation and Insurrection"? 

He complained that the election was being stolen, and with ALL the acts by the FBI, and CIA... i.e. 1)  Fabricating Investigations with evidence they KNEW was FAKE (the Mueller Investigation)... 2)  Hiding the Hunter Laptop (had it for over a YEAR), then 3)  Calling it Russian DISINFORMATION (when the KNEW it was real, and Hunter has ADMITTED it was his), and 4) 51 Washington Bureaucrats from the FBI and CIA signed a letter SWEARING it was "Russian Disinformation".. when it WAS REAL...

It seem to me Donald Trump has MORE THAN enough information to "SAY" that the election was being stolen... UNLESS they plan to take his freedom of SPEECH away from him also...

The UN-elected American BUREAUCRACY needs to be impartial, or RESIGN their positions... THESE are only a few examples why THIS BUREAUCRACY needs to be GUTTED, and RE-MADE... it was THEY who created the Washington Jan 6th riots, NOT Donald Trump !!
 

 

ConservativeWave » 28 Apr 2024, 3:22 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2024, 3:22 pm

He would be cleared of ALL the charges he's been accused of... "instigation and Insurrection"? 

He complained that the election was being stolen, and with ALL the acts by the FBI, and CIA... i.e. 1)  Fabricating Investigations with evidence they KNEW was FAKE (the Mueller Investigation)... 2)  Hiding the Hunter Laptop (had it for over a YEAR), then 3)  Calling it Russian DISINFORMATION (when the KNEW it was real, and Hunter has ADMITTED it was his), and 4) 51 Washington Bureaucrats from the FBI and CIA signed a letter SWEARING it was "Russian Disinformation".. when it WAS REAL...

It seem to me Donald Trump has MORE THAN enough information to "SAY" that the election was being stolen... UNLESS they plan to take his freedom of SPEECH away from him also...

The UN-elected American BUREAUCRACY needs to be impartial, or RESIGN their positions... THESE are only a few examples why THIS BUREAUCRACY needs to be GUTTED, and RE-MADE... it was THEY who created the Washington Jan 6th riots, NOT Donald Trump !!

fake electors of which he is guilty.

ConservativeWave » 28 Apr 2024, 3:22 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2024, 3:22 pm

He would be cleared of ALL the charges he's been accused of... "instigation and Insurrection"? 

He complained that the election was being stolen, and with ALL the acts by the FBI, and CIA... i.e. 1)  Fabricating Investigations with evidence they KNEW was FAKE (the Mueller Investigation)... 2)  Hiding the Hunter Laptop (had it for over a YEAR), then 3)  Calling it Russian DISINFORMATION (when the KNEW it was real, and Hunter has ADMITTED it was his), and 4) 51 Washington Bureaucrats from the FBI and CIA signed a letter SWEARING it was "Russian Disinformation".. when it WAS REAL...

It seem to me Donald Trump has MORE THAN enough information to "SAY" that the election was being stolen... UNLESS they plan to take his freedom of SPEECH away from him also...

The UN-elected American BUREAUCRACY needs to be impartial, or RESIGN their positions... THESE are only a few examples why THIS BUREAUCRACY needs to be GUTTED, and RE-MADE... it was THEY who created the Washington Jan 6th riots, NOT Donald Trump !!

---------------------------PHOENIX (AP) — An Arizona grand jury has indicted former President Donald Trump ‘s chief of staff Mark Meadows, lawyer Rudy Giuliani and 16 others for their roles in an attempt to overturn Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.The indictment released Wednesday names 11 Republicans who submitted a document to Congress falsely declaring that Trump won Arizona in 2020. They include the former state party chair, a 2022 U.S. Senate candidate and two sitting state lawmakers, who are charged with nine counts each of conspiracy, fraud and forgery.The identities of seven other defendants, including Giuliani and Meadows, were not immediately released because they had not yet been served with the documents. They were readily identifiable based on descriptions of the defendants, however.Trump himself was not charged but was referred to as an unindicted co-conspirator---------------------- https://apnews.com/article/arizona-fake ... a55401af85
 

ConservativeWave » 28 Apr 2024, 3:22 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2024, 3:22 pm

He would be cleared of ALL the charges he's been accused of... "instigation and Insurrection"? 

He complained that the election was being stolen, and with ALL the acts by the FBI, and CIA... i.e. 1)  Fabricating Investigations with evidence they KNEW was FAKE (the Mueller Investigation)... 2)  Hiding the Hunter Laptop (had it for over a YEAR), then 3)  Calling it Russian DISINFORMATION (when the KNEW it was real, and Hunter has ADMITTED it was his), and 4) 51 Washington Bureaucrats from the FBI and CIA signed a letter SWEARING it was "Russian Disinformation".. when it WAS REAL...

It seem to me Donald Trump has MORE THAN enough information to "SAY" that the election was being stolen... UNLESS they plan to take his freedom of SPEECH away from him also...

The UN-elected American BUREAUCRACY needs to be impartial, or RESIGN their positions... THESE are only a few examples why THIS BUREAUCRACY needs to be GUTTED, and RE-MADE... it was THEY who created the Washington Jan 6th riots, NOT Donald Trump !!

-------------A state grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday indicted Trump aides including Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and Boris Epshteyn, as well as so-called "fake electors" who backed then-President Donald Trump in 2020, after a sprawling investigation into the alleged efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s win in the presidential election in the state.One month after the 2020 election, 11 Trump supporters convened at the Arizona GOP’s headquarters in Phoenix to sign a certificate claiming to be Arizona’s 11 electors to the Electoral College, though Biden won the state by 10,457 votes and state officials certified his electors. The state Republican Party documented the signing of the certificate in a social media post and sent it to Congress and the National Archives.Trump is described as “Unindicted Coconspirator 1” in the indictment, which includes charges of conspiracy, fraud and forgery. The document also describes people who have been charged in the case but have not yet been served and whose names are redacted: Meadows, Trump's former White House chief of staff; Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and Trump attorney; Epshteyn, a Trump campaign official and attorney; former Trump campaign and White House official Mike Roman; former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis; former Trump attorney Christina Bobb; and John Eastman, another attorney and Trump legal adviser in the aftermath of the 2020 election.---------------------  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e ... rcna149214
 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/arizon ... grand-jury