You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Immunity
- Thread starter vanzandt
- Start date
6-3 decision
Case closed.
119 pages. Should be an interesting read. Official vs.unofficial.
"The Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...presidents-substantial-protection-prosecution
Yeah... interfering with an election is not an "official act"
Here is the PDF of the decision -
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Huh? Of course it gets sent back down. They knew that would happen going in.
"The Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...presidents-substantial-protection-prosecution
Yeah... interfering with an election is not an "official act"
The thing is, every conversation he had, is off limits. Good luck winning that trial. The Justice Department can't make a case.
Huh? Of course it gets sent back down. They knew that would happen going in.
The thing is, every conversation he had, is off limits. Good luck winning that trial. The Justice Department can't make a case.
How is "every conversation he had, is off limits". Anything involved with unofficial acts such as illegal election interference is open for all evidence to be submitted for trial. The lower court merely needs to decide that the election interference was unofficial acts and not official acts.
Every conversation that was provided previously as evidence by the prosecution. That's what I meant. It can't be introduced.How is "every conversation he had, is off limits". Anything involved with unofficial acts such as illegal election interference is open for all evidence to be submitted for trial. The lower court merely needs to decide that the election interference was unofficial acts and not official acts.
How is "every conversation he had, is off limits". Anything involved with unofficial acts such as illegal election interference is open for all evidence to be submitted for trial. The lower court merely needs to decide that the election interference was unofficial acts and not official acts.
Supreme court basically said every thing they charged him with at the moment comes within official duties. So Jack Smith would need to make up completely new bullshit charges against Trump, and then have to prove the new bullshit was unofficial..
Last edited:
Or before it can be introduced, it has to be proven as unofficial lol. A new trial for each piece of evidence. Trump will be 120 years old by then.Every conversation that was provided previously as evidence by the prosecution. That's what I meant. It can't be introduced.