Special Counsel Moves to Dismiss Election Interference Lawsuit Against Trump

[At30wecashout]

President elect is essentially sitting president, as far as a federal indictment against him. You can't indict a president elect any more than a sitting president.
Now, for sure on Smith's part, is this part of some strategy? to preserve his dignity? to keep control of some case files?

Like 20 years the Office of Legal Counsel, which is like the lawyers for DOJ drafted a memo, which decrees that you cannot prosecute a sitting president, that has been the guiding principle for the last 20 years or so. I am pretty sure that the DOJ could undo that any time, they just need lawyers to draft another memo.

Keep in mind that part of his early defense is he was running for President so any measure used against him was political. Didn't land, but the non-stop appeals, date pushbacks by Judges AND the Supreme Court slow-rolling the judgement on whether he can be prosecuted, their subsequent decision that presumes Presidents have innocence and that the presiding judge will have to pick apart what they believe are actionable charges against Trump....there was a lot of interference played for Trump by people he put into place.

They ran out the clock and now any action taken against him risks a number of dumb escalations that we really have no remedy for. The DOJ memo was, I could be wrong, written to cover federal prosecution. States should be on his ass still BUT with the Supreme Court and a shyt ton of actors on his behalf threatening behind the scenes, we have run into a constitutional crisis where everyone is afraid to take the next step. Why? Domestic terrorists. FBI mentions white supremacist cells are active and they have clung to Trump. Jan 6 was a thin line from being a complete overthrow and unfortunately the USA only works if people play by the rules.

Trump did not but everyone who opposed him, Dems and Republicans alike, weew using legal means. Legal means works better when you are not facing a billionaire who installed his own judiciary and people who are true believers of him no matter what he does. Basically, criticizing this like its a normal "Bad guy should be punished" is completely off the table. We are in new territory thanks to a fukking reality show host that people love.

 

[At30wecashout]

Yeah the ruling only applied to Trump

The ruling presumed innocence and says that in the case of improprieties, they still go through the courts.

The courts ultimately decide if a case against a President has standing. The court is 6-3 conservative. Functionally:

THIS RULING ONLY APPLIES TO TRUMP

No other President will get this kind of layup. They set the table for him to skate.

 

[Wolfpac]

Hitler smiling looking up from below.

 

[JLova]

Let us hope.

May just result in a disappointment similar to the Comey situation.

He is shook just like everyone else. Trump and that MAGA cult is going after everyone.

 

[pawdalaw]

I know of a few felons that have to live in hotels, and are excluded from working in certain fields. Yes! As absurd as it sounds expunge all “victimless/ non-violent felons.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Yeah the ruling only applied to Trump

It's easy to see how some of their rulings, combined with things like Clarence Thomas's legal asides, were designed to only apply to Trump or work in his favor. It's not too much of a stretch to state this, especially with things like this:

How Clarence Thomas laid groundwork for Trump's classified documents case being dismissed

'This is an aggressive ruling,' one conservative scholar said of Judge Aileen Cannon's decision. 'I’m not sure she got it right on the merits.'

www.usatoday.com

A federal judge's controversial move to throw out the charges against former President Donald Trump in his long-running classified documents case on Monday may have been inspired by a legal aside by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas two weeks earlier.

On July 1, Thomas joined the high court's conservative majority in dramatically expanding the scope of presidential immunity for crimes committed in office. But he also, in his separate, concurring opinion, lit the fuse on U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's Monday bombshell.

Thomas, the court's longest-serving justice, suggested that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith − who is prosecuting both the classified documents case and a separate election interference case − was unconstitutional.

This previously marginal notion, that special counsels − used for decades by administrations from both parties − are illegitimate without specific legislation or Senate confirmation, had been raised by Trump in Cannon' Florida courtroom.

On July 15, Cannon cited Thomas' argument four times when dismissing the charges.

Supreme Court justices usually issue opinions only on the question before them, but Thomas is known for using his written opinions to raise issues that aren't before the court.

In his immunity opinion, he wrote, “I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”

If there is “no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution," Thomas added. "A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”

Trump is charged with hoarding classified documents taken from the White House at his private club in Florida and asking employees to erase security camera footage of documents being hidden away from investigators.

Cannon − a 2020 Trump appointee who had already made several widely criticized pro-Trump rulings in the documents case − had signaled openness to this argument by holding a hearing on the constitutional question, an unusual measure for a district court judge.

 

[drederick tatum]

President elect is essentially sitting president, as far as a federal indictment against him. You can't indict a president elect any more than a sitting president.
Now, for sure on Smith's part, is this part of some strategy? to preserve his dignity? to keep control of some case files?

Like 20 years the Office of Legal Counsel, which is like the lawyers for DOJ drafted a memo, which decrees that you cannot prosecute a sitting president, that has been the guiding principle for the last 20 years or so. I am pretty sure that the DOJ could undo that any time, they just need lawyers to draft another memo.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just saying it seems like they could go after him, but they won't. And I know it's career suicide, but if they get him up outta there, it's a kamikaze Phoenix mission

 

[Elim Garak]

I mean it's no way they were going to prosecute if he won. It shouldn't be that way but they already established the president is above the law 4 years ago.

 

[Elim Garak]

They better not ever let me be president because I wouldn't give a fukk what a court says lol. I'm making Universal Healthcare free, I'm wiping all the student loan debt. I'm giving out reparations. I'm doing a UBI program. I mean who the fukk can actually stop me?

 

[At30wecashout]

They better not ever let me be president because I wouldn't give a fukk what a court says lol. I'm making Universal Healthcare free, I'm wiping all the student loan debt. I'm giving out reparations. I'm doing a UBI program. I mean who the fukk can actually stop me?

Congress as all of those things require legislation. You can decree what you want and they won’t be actionable.

 

[Sonic Boom of the South]

Damm so Democrats just gone go right along with it.


shyt really is both sides.


2 different wings.
Same fukking bird.

 

[Jimmy from Linkedin]

Trump go to a voo doo lady out there in Florida..

You ain't hear that from me though..

come up off that conjurewoman

 

[Elim Garak]

Congress as all of those things require legislation. You can decree what you want and they won’t be actionable.

shyt what the fukk they gonna do. We've seen them use money from other things from left over covid funds and from that border bullshyt. I would dare them to stop me.

 

[Outlaw]

Damm so Democrats just gone go right along with it.


shyt really is both sides.


2 different wings.
Same fukking bird.

What do you want the democrats to do?

 

[At30wecashout]

shyt what the fukk they gonna do. We've seen them use money from other things from left over covid funds and from that border bullshyt. I would dare them to stop me.

Who is them? If you mean in the individual states, thats different. The President can't do that. If you get covid funds and there isn't explicit language on it's usage, it can end up being used for fukk shyt. BUT, those funds were given with legislation. Even when Trump diverted funds from Military spending to the border wall, an appeals court eventually reversed it in 2020 and returned most of the cash and Biden re-integrated it into Pentagon spending.