Supreme Court denies Jack Smith’s attempt to accelerate Trump case

25
365

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Friday to hop over the appeals court process and decide itself whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution relating to his efforts to delegitimize the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The court denied the request by Biden Administration special counsel Jack Smith that it bypass a lower appeals court. This may mean that the trial involving Trump will not be heard March 4, the week of Super Tuesday. Smith had argued, “Given the weighty and consequential character of the constitutional questions at stake, only this Court can provide the definitive and final resolution.” Whatever the appeals court decides, the matter will certainly be elevated to the high court.

Smith, on behalf of the Biden Justice Department, has several charges pending against Trump, who also faces numerous charges by Democrat state prosecutors in Georgia and New York. In addition, New York City and State have filed civil complaints against Trump and his business enterprises relating to taxes and property assessments.

State officials in Michigan are reportedly investigating an allegation made by the Detroit News, which said it’s reviewed a recording of a phone call between Trump and local election officials of Wayne County, during which Trump can be heard urging two local Michigan Republicans not to sign the Wayne County certification for the 2020 election.

25 COMMENTS

  1. Again a early morning post, 4;07am! Some outsider must be trying to influence Alaska politics!!! What gives???

  2. Trump was not wrong. The 2020 presidential (s)election WAS illegitimate.
    As is the ruling Usurper China Joe PotatoHead regime.
    It’s ongoing treasonous and consistently national self-destructive policies are proof enough of that all by themselves.

    • No, it wasn’t and neither he nor you have ever provided any real evidence that it was. Maybe that’s why every court in the nation threw out his lawsuits. Smell what you’re shoveling you sore loser snowflake.

      • Cman, your disingenuous pro-establishment twaddle is infantile in its reasoning and intellectually insulting in its complete lack of logic and facts.

        And the fact is, NO court “threw out” any lawsuit challenging the stolen 2020 election, and the massive, MASSIVE voting fraud that accompanied it. The courts simply, and dishonestly, in a total lack of justice, declared that each and EVERY person or entity bringing those charges lacked “standing”, and summarily dismissed those lawsuits without ever hearing the facts of the cases. And I know that you know this, yet you still stubbornly cling to your threadworn partisan talking points in the feeble attempt to refute the truth.

        Just like every other radical leftist extremist out there, you put your blind partisan zealotry of winning at EVERY cost , BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, above decency, honesty, fairness and justice. It is the pursuit of power, at any price, that defines today’s radical leftist extremists, including you.

        And yes, I am and will continue to call you and your ilk a “radical leftist extremist”, because that is PRECISELY what you, and they, are.

        • Keep up your pointless whining and crying. It’s both pathetic and entertaining.

          How much are the Koch Brothers paying you to spout your mindless drivel on here? You galactic sized arrogance is astounding.

  3. It sounds like the DEMs are going to be smoking more weed when this is settled against them. The more they try to squelch DT. the worst it gets for them. Every lie they have proposed, that gets more uncovered and they’re the ones that’s going to be sitting somewhere else.

  4. Summary. SCOTUS isn’t gonna do his job for him.

    If you wanna take down a former POTUS and current opposition party front runner via lawfare, you’re gonna have to do the work yourself.

  5. I am old enough to remember when James Comey stepped forward and made assertions, some of the justification for which rested on the delicate way that matters needed to be handled around an election. This Smith guy is really something…

    Merry Christmas, Suzanne! Thanks for the hat tip…

    • North, I remember that too, along with the “no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against Hillary”! Never mind that it wasn’t his call to make, being an FBI guy and NOT a prosecutor, since in normal circumstances that’s not how it works.
      Smith wanted a slam-dunk from the Supreme Court to lift his case out of la-al land, but the Justices are on to him. Good for them!

  6. Tomorrow is Human Rights Day. In America now political opposites can obliterate the human rights of their political opposites even if he is former the President.

  7. Here is a question: Do citizens (using the term legally in applied law of nations) have an unalienable right to freedom of speech meaning political speech in America?

    I’ll wait…

  8. You don’t know? I thought you went to school and everything? I thought you received an A in sports. I thought you passed an expensive foreign BAR Association corporation test and everything.

  9. Conversely, what if you went to the school of hard knocks. Could we get the hold of your freedom of political speech right and toss it in the bin of skullduggery depending upon where you are within the United States of America? Go ahead! Teach us something in this your well-mannered moment.

Comments are closed.