Breaking - Jack Smith directly to Scotus: Decide slobby's immunity NOW. 👍

[mobeau69]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna129088

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. This will be interesting

Link to tweet

[mobeau69]

2. Thank you.

[dalton99a]

12. +1

[cilla4progress]

57. Check..

Mate..?

[Bettie]

3. So, the question is

do they declare him immune from all prosecution?

If they do, do they do it narrowly, making it only for him personally?

[csziggy]

6. Or do they do as SCOTUS has before in the Bush v Gore case

And declare it is only applicable to that singular case - and only benefiting the Repuke?

[former9thward]

11. That is an internet urban legend.

The SC in Bush v Gore did NOT declare it only applicable to that case. In fact, Bush v Gore has been cited in hundreds of other cases as precedent in various briefs and decisions at district and appellate courts across the country.

[lastlib]

44. Actually, they DID declare it as only applicable to that one case.

supreme.justia.com:
But that hasn't stopped courts and lawyers from citing it.

While the opinion explicitly states that it applies only to the unique circumstances of this election, it has been cited in cases at the lower levels of federal courts on election law and procedures.

[former9thward]

61. All SC decisions only apply to one case.

As every attorney knows the SC never gives a decision that will apply to everything in the future because there are always some factual differences in every case. Bush v Gore has been cited as precedent thousands of times by attorneys and courts that disagree with you.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

53. Maybe you need to read the actual decision

Because it does explicitly state that the ruling applies only to that case. In fact, if you look at the actual ruling, on page 109, these are the very words that did it:

“Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”

{Emphasis mine}

You can get your own copy of the ruling here:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/case.pdf

[former9thward]

59. Every SC decision is limited to the Present circumstances.

As every attorney knows the SC never gives a decision that will apply to everything in the future because there are always some factual differences in every case. Bush v Gore has been cited as precedent thousands of times by attorneys and courts that disagree with you.

[Bettie]

14. That's my fear

my only reason for hope is that they realize in a dictatorship they lose their power and rule against him to keep it.

[mopinko]

7. i dont think they're willing to show their whole asses to protect that asshole.

mostly cuz they dont need him.
they havent bent over 4 him yet, they’re not gonna start now. they’re in deep enough shit as it is.

[pandr32]

20. That's what I think, too.

I am sure Jack Smith has considered this thoroughly.

[New Haven]

48. and already polled them

No risk that way

[mobeau69]

9. It would have to be for all presidents IMO. Otherwise it would fall in the realm os a special law which is

unconstitutional.

I’m not a Constitutional lawyer but I play one on DU.

[Bettie]

10. Bush V Gore

was for one guy and one guy only.

And the SCOTUS has set up that they alone decide what is constitutional.

[former9thward]

15. No, That is an internet urban legend.

The SC in Bush v Gore did NOT declare it only applicable to that case. In fact, Bush v Gore has been cited in hundreds of other cases as precedent in various briefs and decisions at district and appellate courts across the country.

[Bettie]

17. The decision held language that

specifically said it was not a case to be cited beyond there.

Whether it happened later or not is irrelevant, the language was there, but it was disregarded later on.

The intent was to give an election to a specific Republican regardless of the vote totals.

[Kingofalldems]

28. I remember that.

Don't know why anyone would claim otherwise.

[former9thward]

34. I have read the decision and the language is not there.

Please link to the language.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/case.pdf

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

56. Yes, it is.

Because it's on page 109, clear as day:

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

I assure you that plenty of people who know far more about law than you ever will knew what the court was saying there.

[former9thward]

65. You can personally attack me all you want.

The case can and is used as precedent by "plenty of people who know far more about law than you ever will knew"

[Spazito]

58. The sentence in question is on Page 12...

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection
in election processes generally presents many complexities.

The bolded part is the one that has been read as meaning the case is limited to the specific circumstances and not meant to set precedence.

Some articles discussing this very issue:

Please Don't Cite This Case! The Precedential Value of Bush v. Gore

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/please-dona8217t-cite-this-case-the-precedential-value-of-bush-v-gore

Legal Precedent and the Bush-Gore Ruling

https://www.npr.org/2006/08/20/5678490/legal-precedent-and-the-bush-gore-ruling

[Bettie]

60. Thanks so much for posting this

so I don't have to do the search and find it!

[Spazito]

62. You're welcome ! It did take a bit but I knew there was language that related to precedence....

in the decision that is still debated today, I just needed to find out exactly what it was.

[former9thward]

63. The court did NOT say it could not be cited as precedent.

They simply didn't. As every attorney knows the SC never gives a decision that will apply to everything in the future because there are always some factual differences in every case. Bush v Gore has been cited as precedent thousands of times by attorneys and courts that disagree with you.

P.S. a law journal forum is an opinion by a lawyer and nothing more.

[Spazito]

68. I took the cite from your very link....

the one you recommended we all read. The court doesn't usually add this specific limitation, it is rare to say the least wouldn't you agree.

[former9thward]

69. Here is an article about it. As of 2020.

Bush v. Gore has done all right for itself outside the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only has it been cited well over a hundred times by state supreme courts and federal courts of appeals, that tally grows to about 500 when lower courts are included — from litigation over the 2003 vote to recall California Gov. Gray Davis to this year’s court battle over felon reenfranchisement in Florida. That means there’s a chance Bush v. Gore could reprise its role this year at the center of the resolution of the presidential race, should, say, Pennsylvania become to 2020 what Florida was for 2000. (Indeed, the case has already been raised as part of the ongoing litigation about how to handle mail-in ballots in the state.)

It could also help decide the outcome of other key races, a particularly consequential possibility given that control of the Senate is at stake this year. In 2008, for example, Norm Coleman, an incumbent Republican senator from Minnesota, tried to use Bush v. Gore to challenge the process by which election officials decided whether absentee ballots were valid. He was unsuccessful, and his Democratic opponent, the comedian Al Franken, ultimately won the seat.

Over the past two decades, Bush v. Gore has evolved beyond the partisan identity it maintains in the public imagination. An examination of judicial decisions and court filings in more than 150 cases suggests its invocation won’t necessarily benefit one party or the other.

https://www.propublica.org/article/why-bush-v-gore-still-matters

[Spazito]

71. I also added links in my post that...

discuss the issue from a different perspective. As you stated these are opinions of which there are many and are also diverse in their points and, as such, have no influence on the actual decision by the USSC.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

55. The only one believing an internet legend is you

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/case.pdf

Go to page 109, where the court specifically says that their decision pertains only to the Bush v Gore case:

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

{Emphasis mine}

Maybe you or whoever you're depending on as a source doesn't know how to read language like that in a ruling, but real lawyers certainly do.

[mobeau69]

16. It would have to be for all. Special laws are unconstitutional.

[pwb]

4. If trump is immune imagine what Joe can do now?

Break up some monopolies, make it so the rich just have way too much money and not most of it. The court decides for all Presidents.

[Kennah]

5. Lock up Trump, in Gitmo

[malaise]

22. No

Lock him up in the USA

[mobeau69]

70. I agree. Colorado has an excellent facility for monsters.

[malaise]

72. Good

Send him there.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

80. So does Attica

[Bettie]

24. Well, if he was immune, being a President

by their precedent, he could indeed just forgive all the student loan debt.

[Polybius]

64. He would be imune from crimes

Doesn't mean he can make any law he wants without going through Congress.

[Bettie]

66. Well, rats, because

he's unlikely to commit any crimes....so, it would be only for Republicans.

[malaise]

8. I love Jack Smith

Down goes the Slobfather

[mobeau69]

21. He's a badass!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. Seriously!!

[Bev54]

13. Here is the link to the filing

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/292946/20231211115417267_No.%2023-624%20U.S.%20v.%20Donald%20J.%20Trump%20Petition.pdf

[Torchlight]

27. I doubt anything about these cases could be predicated on an 'average'

And Smith appears to have both a well-reasoned response as well as a quick counter to every stunt Trump's pulled to date.

[Torchlight]

36. Given the already expedited procedures, it does not follow

[Torchlight]

43. Interesting guesswork

supported by fallacies of the converse.

[Torchlight]

54. Quite the movement.

[FHRRK]

19. Good, the Justices need to be on record

Pony up mother fuckers!

[MistakenLamb]

46. With their lifetime appointments already secured I won't hold my breath

[Deminpenn]

23. In Jones v Clinton

SCOTUS ruled that presidents can be sued while they are in office for crimes they committed before they took office. Clearly, the allegations in NY (James) fall in that category. The case Bragg brought might, too.

[bluestarone]

25. Wholly Molly WOW! Awesome

Way past time for REAL ANSWERS!! Come on SC do your fucking job!!

[bucolic_frolic]

26. Great move. Don't let Trump huff and puff for 9 months, let's have it done now

A surprise move, and prevents hot air momentum from building up. Citizens deserve to know too, so they can plan their lives around normal or dictatorship.

[orangecrush]

40. This

[bluestarone]

29. This go to Roberts hand?

First?

[edhopper]

30. Or they pull a Citizen's United

a case where anybody could see that there is no Constitutional right to spend money on politics...free speech for corporations. But then created a new Constitutional Right and a new class of citizen.

So I don't see why they wouldn't say only Congress can try a former President, except they can't. Perfect Catch 22 to get their guy off the hook.

[NowISeetheLight]

31. TFG & SCOTUS

While TFG put three idiots on the court, they haven't exactly always supported him. I can totally see this going against him 6-3 or even a 7-2. I see Alito and Thomas as no votes, but Gorsich, Kavanagh and Barrett could vote yes. I also see Robert's voting yes as he's concerned with the legacy.

[bluestarone]

33. THIS should be a no brainer for the SC.

If they sit on it, we'll KNOW what they are all about!. ONE DAY is all it should take!

[PortTack]

35. Good..cut him off at the knees. He was hoping to go thru the appeals court...wait a few months, appeal

More months and then on to the SC probably putting it beyond the election

[spanone]

37. If they decide in his favor, America is done.

[orangecrush]

39. This is big.

Holding breath.

[lees1975]

41. He's wasting his time if he doesn't go there first.

Otherwise, the whole trial and conviction will be overturned by them.

[LudwigPastorius]

42. There are many things to which Trump is immune.

Facts, decency, sanity, patriotism, logic...

But, prosecution isn't one of them!

[Shermann]

45. This is an interesting gamble

SCOTUS might do the right thing eventually but do the wrong thing now and stall things until the election has come and gone.

[ancianita]

47. Here are the Main Documents of both of Jack Smith's latest opposing motions.

On Saturday:

Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 167 Motion to Compel and in Opposition to ECF No. 166-1 (Motion for an Order Regarding the Scope of the Prosecution Team) (Windom, Thomas) (Entered: 12/09/2023)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/181/united-states-v-trump/


Yesterday, Sunday:

Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 178 Motion for Order (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 12/10/2023)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2

p 2 of 3 pages:

...The Court should not assume at this juncture that no issue can arise that is not involved

in the appeal. For example, the Circuit recently returned the mandate on the Court’s Rule 57.7

order regarding extrajudicial statements, and the Court has jurisdiction to administer that order.

Likewise, nothing about the defendant’s appeal prevents the Court from continuing to enforce—

including, if necessary, by ordering briefing or holding hearings—the protective orders governing

discovery (ECF Nos. 28 and 37) and the order imposing conditions of release on the defendant

(ECF No. 13).

In addition, while the appeal is pending, the Court can make headway on the motions

already before it, including the defendant’s motions to dismiss based on statutory grounds and

selective and vindictive prosecution. The Court can and should properly deny these motions under

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, which provides that a district court retains the authority to

deny pending motions that it otherwise “lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been

docketed and is pending.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(2). Similarly, if the defendant initiates certain

litigation—as he has done by filing his stay motion—the Court can take it up and resolve it. See,

e.g., Jefferson, ECF No. 199 (hearing on several motions filed by the defendant while defendant’s

Speech or Debate interlocutory appeal was pending); United States v. McDade, No. 92-cr-249,

1994 WL 161243, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 1994) (resolving defendant’s motion for issuance of

deposition subpoenas while his interlocutory appeal of the denial of his motion to dismiss on

Speech or Debate grounds was pending).

For its part, in light of the public’s strong interest in a prompt trial, the Government will

seek to ensure that trial proceeds as scheduled. In particular, the Government will continue to

p 3 of 3 pgs

meet all of its deadlines in the Court’s pretrial schedule, ECF No. 39. This means that, while the

appeal is pending, although the defendant will not be subjected to the “burdens of litigation,” ECF

No. 178 at 5, the Government will continue to shoulder its own burden. Accordingly, the

Government will provide the defendant and the Court with any notice required by the pretrial

schedule, and more—including, depending on the length of the appellate process, the

Government’s exhibit list, motions in limine, and other pleadings pertaining to the Government’s

trial presentation. Any filings the Government makes according to this Court’s schedule while the

appeal is pending can then be promptly litigated if the Court’s order is affirmed and the mandate

is returned.

To the extent that the defendant is seeking a stay, pending his appeal, of matters implicating

“those aspects of the case involved in the appeal,” Griggs, 559 U.S. at 58, the Court should deny

his motion as unnecessary and duplicative; that divestiture occurred when the defendant filed his

notice of appeal. Otherwise, the Court should decline to issue an order that would prevent it from

resolving pending motions or handling aspects of this case unrelated to the appeal.


Respectfully submitted,

JACK SMITH
Special Counsel

By: /s/ Molly Gaston
Molly Gaston
Thomas P. Windom
Senior Assistant Special Counsels

[Demnh2fl]

49. Make them choose now

Jack Smith is smart to do this . If they’re in the tank for Trump make the call and stop wasting everyone’s time.
Then he or any other President will be free to kill someone on the White House lawn and not be accountable to anyone. If it is constitutional in their eyes to commit any crime in office then the American Revolution was a waste of blood. Trump can’t be a modern version of King George.

[TygrBright]

50. Supremes'll find a way to weasel out on this one. n/t

[FakeNoose]

52. YES! Make them go on the record, finally!!!

[Polybius]

67. When will they rule on this?

Would it be fast-tracked, or potentially at the end of the term in June?

[bluestarone]

74. Well, to me this is open and shut. I can think of NO lawyers or witness's that need to be called to testify

This is 100% on the SC. They and only THEY can decide this. Should be TODAY in my books.

[C_U_L8R]

73. Would they rule that President Biden has unlimited immunity too?

It could be hilarious to see the maga Justices try to parse their way through this. Frankly, I think Trump is fucked.

[LAS14]

75. Well, now. There's an interesting question!!! nt

[malaise]

76. Slobby is up shit creek without a paddle

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/418/683.html

United States Supreme Court

UNITED STATES v. NIXON(1974)

No. 73-1766

Argued: July 08, 1974
Decided: July 24, 1974

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. Jack Smith is a national treasure!!

[Handler]

79. Jack Smith's plan.

I think Jack Smith is considering the shaky ground SCOTUS is standing on at this time. I believe the court would like less scrutiny at this point.