{"id":41928,"date":"2023-12-26T09:44:13","date_gmt":"2023-12-26T14:44:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=41928"},"modified":"2023-12-26T09:47:11","modified_gmt":"2023-12-26T14:47:11","slug":"jack-smith-looses-his-attempt-to-interfere-with-super-tuesday","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=41928","title":{"rendered":"Jack Smith loses his attempt to interfere with Super Tuesday"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. Jack Smith, the \u201cSpecial Counsel\u201d charged with railroading the Greatest President of the 21st<\/sup> Century, Donald Trump, into jail recently went to the Supreme Court to get an expedited hearing on presidential immunity.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The question before the court was whether or not a president has immunity on his actions when he was president of the United States. The Obama judge aiding in the railroading said there is no such immunity, (Opening the door for the prosecution of every living president for pretty much anything) President Trump\u2019s legal team appealed this to the next level and Obama judge Chutkan put a hold on everything until the this was sorted out by the appeals courts and eventually the supreme court.<\/p>\n

This threw a monkey wrench into Smiths plans to make sure President Trump wouldn\u2019t be able to campaign on Super Tuesday. (This was when he wanted the trial to begin) To try and get this dealt with quickly, Smith asked the Supreme Court to issue an expedited ruling. The answer came down and it was \u201cNope!\u201d Here are the details from Fox News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to issue an expedited ruling on whether former President Donald Trump<\/a> has immunity from prosecution related to the 2020 election interference case. <\/b>Appellate courts are hearing the immunity case, but the Supreme Court ruled Friday that it would proceed as normal. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Trump’s criminal trial in Washington, D.C. was scheduled to begin on March 4, but it’s unclear if the Supreme Court ruling will force a delay. Special Counsel Jack Smith initially asked the Supreme Court to expedite arguments in the presidential immunity case. <\/b><\/p>\n

For those of you who haven\u2019t been paying attention, March 4th<\/sup> is a Monday. Super Tuesday, when a large number of Primaries and Caucuses are held, is the next day. Smith, operating on orders from Biden and Garland, had planned to prevent President Trump from being able to campaign. In other words, Smith is guilty of attempted election interference.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Trump’s legal team earlier this week filed a written response to Smith’s request, urging the Supreme Court<\/a> not to rush things. <\/b><\/p>\n

“This appeal presents momentous, historic questions,” the brief stated. “An erroneous denial of a claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution unquestionably warrants this Court\u2019s review. The Special Counsel contends that \u2018[i]t is of imperative public importance that respondent\u2019s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court.’ <\/b><\/p>\n

“That does not entail, however, that the Court should take the case before the lower courts complete their review. Every jurisdictional and prudential consideration calls for this Court to allow the appeal to proceed first in the D.C. Court.” <\/b><\/p>\n

The entire case, along with the others that Soros District Attorneys have brought in New York and Georgia, are garbage. They rely on what is called a \u201cNovel legal theory.\u201d I\u2019m not a lawyer, (Thank God!) so I might be making mistakes in my remarks, I trust those with actual legal training, will correct me in the comments. Basically, instead of following the letter of the law, prosecutors, for all intents and purposes, twist the law so they can invent criminal charges to go after people they don\u2019t like. If you want to see how this works, watch the TV series \u201cLaw and Order.\u201d Jack McCoy has a habit of using this tactic to \u201cGet\u201d people.<\/p>\n

While this tactic can work against people with limited resources, the goal being to force them to plead out to crimes they didn\u2019t actually commit, when you have someone with plenty of resources and who was the President of the United States, you are going to have a fight on your hands. This is what is happening in all the cases, especially this one.<\/p>\n

Jack Smith knows that he will get a conviction, not because President Trump committed a crime, (He didn\u2019t), but because the Washington 4th<\/sup> Circuit Court is so biased that there is no way anyone who isn\u2019t part of the Democrat Deep State can get a fair trial. We\u2019ve seen this with all the January 6th<\/sup> cases where the courts have basically shut down any potential defense by the defendants. (The appeals are underway, and with the videos now coming out showing that the so called \u201cInsurrectionists\u201d were being escorted by the police, the narratives are collapsing)<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Now the Supreme Court has, in no uncertain terms, told Smith to Get Stuffed. The question on presidential immunity will now be handled by the appeals court and that will take some time. Depending on how that goes, it will either be appealed to the full appellate court or to the Supreme Court. If the courts rule in the President\u2019s favor, the case against President Trump is over.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

There is another issue that I don\u2019t think the highly partisan Smith or his team of legal thugs has considered. If the court ends presidential immunity, then all current and former presidents are now open to prosecution. Right off the bat I can think of charges brought against Barack Obama. He could be charged with murder in the 1st<\/sup> degree for a drone strike he ordered on an American Citizen. Worse, the person was only 16. According to Wikipedia<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi, August 26, 1995 \u2013 October 14, 2011) was a 16-year-old United States citizen who was killed by a drone strike on October 14, 2011, under a policy approved by U.S. President Obama.<\/b><\/p>\n

Apparently, his father was working with Al Qaeda. He was also and American citizen. Both were killed in Yemen. We were not at War with Yemen and neither one of these people was actively engaging in an attack on the United States. Technically, the father should have been arrested and put on trial. There is no indication that Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki was involved in any way with Al Qaeda or his father\u2019s alleged crimes. (Yeah daddy was probably guilty but that\u2019s another story) Since Obama ordered the strike, Obama is technically guilty of murder of two United States Citizens, one of whom was probably guilty of nothing at all.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I have a suspicion that if this does reach the Supreme Court, they will rule against Smith for the very reason that every president could be opened up to criminal charges for certain actions taken while in office that, on their face, seemed to be reasonable at the time. That is a major can of worms the Supreme Court doesn\u2019t want to open if they don\u2019t have to. (We can deal with all the other issues such as Smith\u2019s apparent contempt for the Bill of Rights another time)<\/p>\n

Smith, Garland, Biden and the entire Democrat Party are blind to what might happen if Presidential Immunity is ended by the Courts. They just want to \u201cGet Trump!\u201d and make sure that he will not be able to be re-elected in 2024. They aren\u2019t considering, yet again, that what they are using against President Trump will be used against them. In any case, there is a lot going on now thanks to this attempt by Smith and it may not end well…For Smith.<\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n\"1\"2\"3\"4\"5 (2<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

\u00a0