SCOTUS Slaps Jack Smith With Horrible News – Rules In FAVOR Of Trump!

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

The Special Counsel Jack Smith case against former President Donald Trump was legally put on hold until January 6th, but the Supreme Court on Wednesday officially started the process of delaying it. By setting April 25 as the date for hearing oral arguments in the Trump immunity case, the Supreme Court effectively put the federal J6 case on hold until June at the latest.

The scheduling choice is being made at a critical juncture in Trump’s legal defense against allegations arising from the events of January 6. The former president has vehemently maintained that his immunity from prosecution stems from his position as the country’s top official at the time of the Capitol breach.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case marks the beginning of a potentially pivotal stage in the legal battles that followed Trump’s turbulent exit from office.

The Court has unintentionally given Trump’s legal team a tactical edge by permitting Trump’s immunity claim to come before the federal J6 case. In addition to buying Trump some time, the action raises doubts about the prosecution’s momentum, which has been slowly gaining steam during the Biden administration.

WATCH:

The Supreme Court declared on February 28 that it will hear the case to decide whether the former president may claim immunity from federal prosecution in the case involving electoral sabotage. As the front-runner in the 2024 election, Trump has frequently had to navigate complicated legal issues. In the past, the court heard arguments in a different case pertaining to the “insurrection ban” clause of the 14th Amendment and how it affects his fitness to hold public office.

Trump’s attorneys have warned of more politically motivated charges and blackmail, claiming that allowing the case to move forward will have significant ramifications for presidential authority. His attorneys stated, “The presidency as we know it will cease to exist without immunity from criminal prosecution.”

“Any decision by the president on a politically controversial question would face the threat of indictment by the opposing party after a change in administrations. All presidential decisions would be exposed to undue, wrongful pressure from opposing political forces, under a threat of indictment after the president has left office.”

In the event that the Court rules in Trump’s favor, it might establish a precedent that changes the nature of presidential accountability going forward. On the other hand, a decision against Trump would support the J6 case and support the judiciary’s position about the boundaries of presidential immunity.

But the bids by Colorado, Illinois, and other states to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 were rejected by the Supreme Court on Monday, setting up the Republican nominee’s road to a rematch with President Joe Biden in the general election.

“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the Court wrote.

The 45th president praised the choice in a message posted on Truth Social, adding to his 6.6 million followers, “Big win for America!”

The judges discussed the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims that Trump was ineligible for more than two hours. Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that he and his colleagues had “difficult questions” to answer.

COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 

 

 

 

 

Send this to a friend