Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Have I got this right...? Crime by Ponderer January 7, 2025 7:40 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (19 comments) [191 views]
Trump's America, home of the fact free. Fact Check by Curt_Anderson January 7, 2025 12:19 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (8 comments) [149 views]
pb's Legal Goober #1 on lawfare and the Manhattan trial Law by HatetheSwamp January 7, 2025 6:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (7 comments) [87 views]
Mexican response to Trump. Politics by meagain January 7, 2025 6:52 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [38 views]
McDonald’s is the latest company to roll back diversity goals Gay & Lesbian by HatetheSwamp January 7, 2025 3:38 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [26 views]
Canada's US election night coverage video Media by HatetheSwamp January 6, 2025 1:44 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (3 comments) [79 views]
January 6, 2025. Fourth anniversary of that mostly peaceful protest Government by HatetheSwamp January 6, 2025 9:59 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (11 comments) [85 views]
Is Trump as incensed as he seems or are his histrionics an act? Personality by Curt_Anderson January 6, 2025 12:19 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (7 comments) [77 views]
Giuliani Is Held in Contempt of Court in Defamation Case Law by Curt_Anderson January 6, 2025 2:27 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Donna (2 comments) [35 views]
Las Vegas terror bomber: A DEIed Green Beret Government by HatetheSwamp January 2, 2025 8:32 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (46 comments) [472 views]
Conspiracy selectors, pages, etc.
The Smith Brief on Trump's Non-Immunity
By Ponderer
October 3, 2024 9:35 am
Category: Conspiracy
(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post
How To Post Here
It sure starts out promising...
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR IMMUNITY DETERMINATIONS
The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so. Although the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted — a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role. In Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312 (2024), the Supreme Court held that presidents are immune from prosecution for certain official conduct including the defendant’s use of the Justice Department in furtherance of his scheme, as was alleged in the original indictment —and remanded to this Court to determine whether the remaining allegations against the defendant are immunized. The answer to that question is no. This motion provides a comprehensive account of the defendant's private criminal conduct; sets forth the legal framework created by Trump for resolving immunity claims; applies that framework to establish that none of the defendant's charged conduct is immunized because it either was unofficial or any presumptive immunity is rebutted; and requests the relief the Government seeks, which is, at bottom, this: that the Court determine that the defendant must stand trial for his private crimes as would any other citizen.
This looks to be quite juicy! I invite us all to read it and then we can have a good old fashioned book club meeting about it!
Cited and related links:
documentcloud.org
The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "The Smith Brief on Trump's Non-Immunity":
by islander on October 3, 2024 9:49 am
Thanks Pondy, I will definitely read this !!! 👍
by Ponderer on October 3, 2024 9:57 am
It's a page-turner!
by oldedude on October 3, 2024 11:43 am Sot this is coming from a guy (the prosecution so he has a vested interest in proving himself correct regardless of the facts) who has tried twice and gotten his ahem "hand" slapped about his methods, "evidence," and misreading of the law (meaning he created issues that were legally "unsound"). Right now, all he did was prolong. There will be another appeal. the courts will decide that. then he'll adjust and try again. Smith's trial record is more than dismal, so I wouldn't get my hopes up.
by Indy! on October 3, 2024 11:46 am
Good point, OD. 🙂👍
by Ponderer on October 3, 2024 12:42 pm
Yeah! Great point, olde dude! You certainly have your finger right on the pulse of the entire situation.
Please go ahead and read the whole brief so that you can use your boundless knowledge to tell us why each and every single accusation in it is hogwash...
by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2024 12:48 pm
Has it been determined that Smith has been legitimately appointed?
Don't think so.
BTW, pb's Legal Goober #3 will be on with the gay Guy Curt never heard of today at 5:05 EDT. Fox News Radio
by Ponderer on October 3, 2024 1:00 pm
Oh I breathlessly await those hacks' conclusions, Bill. You gotta post them here the minute they come down from On High.
BTW, I'm on page 47 of the brief. Most of it is stuff we already know, but I wasn't expecting there to be so much evidence that Trump himself organized and orchestrated the whole thing personally in such detail!
by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2024 1:08 pm
Page 47, eh? TDS porn!
Enjoy!
by Ponderer on October 3, 2024 1:08 pm
Aw man! Incredibly succinct and detailed rundown and timeline of all of Trump's different and sundry coup attempts and all the crimes he committed in the act of attempting them.
This thing is beautiful...!
by Ponderer on October 3, 2024 1:12 pm
Actually, Bill, this is going down as history. This stuff is gonna be Trump's legacy.
You know, if you weren't such a flaming, pants-pissing coward, you could read it and see for yourself what a blithering idiot you've been for so many years for swallowing his horseshit.
He lost the election fair and square. You should just deal with it already.
by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2024 1:23 pm
po,
You know d@ng well that an indictment can be produced against a ham sandwich.
It's perfect political porn. But, it's not real.
I encourage you to enjoy but, understand. It's fantasy. Fiction.
But, by all means, enjoy it while you can. At this point, I'd say that there's a less than 10% chance that this will lead to a conviction.
by Ponderer on October 3, 2024 1:55 pm
"You know d@ng well that an indictment can be produced against a ham sandwich." -Hate
I'm not talking about a ham sandwich. Although Trump may have the mental capacity of one. There is a mountain of blatant, demonstrable, and documented evidence against Trump. There are facts, proof and evidence that can be shown in a court of law and will be absolutely damning.
"It's fantasy. Fiction." -Hate
No, it's facts, proof, corroborated testimony, and documented evidence. What afucking fantasyland of flaming bullshit you live in, Bill!
This is fact and reality that you and your Mango Messiah are finally having to deal with now. This briefing is dealing with facts and evidence. Like there was facts, proof, corroborated testimony, and documented evidence in the 34 felony cases that Trump was convicted on.
It would be truly interesting to see how you could existentially deal with the real truth of what Trump is absolutely and provably guilty of. For you to see how Trump himself provided so much of the evidence of his guilt.
He hadn't covered his ass as "perfectly" as he had thought he did.
by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2024 2:10 pm
"No, it's facts, proof, corroborated testimony, and documented evidence. What afucking fantasyland of flaming bullshit you live in, Bill!"
It's mere allegations... to this point.
"It would be truly interesting to see how you could existentially deal with the real truth of what Trump is absolutely and provably guilty of."
Guilty? Under the law of these United States? I don't think it'll ever be. The Supreme Court may kick Jack Smith out on his scrawny @$$, and, if our own Dingbat doesn't win in November? Well?...
So, keep a good thought while you can.
by Ponderer on October 3, 2024 2:29 pm
"Guilty? Under the law of these United States?" -Hate
Yes. Under the law of these United States.
They actually indicted him on a lot of United States laws that they have mountains of evidence of him breaking, making them crimes. Crimes that he is flagrantly and ever so demonstrably guilty of by our legal system.
Crimes that just won't be crimes anymore if Trump can get his reelected emperor's hands on the justice system and the Constitution and turn them into an absolutely unamerican nightmare tool of freedom destroying authoritarianism.
This isn't hyperbole. He has promised to do these things. In so many words.
by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2024 2:53 pm
"Yes. Under the law of these United States."
Good ole po. Judge and jury.
I'll repeat what you've demonstrated numerous times. You'd be the first SSer to join a lynch mob.
by Ponderer on October 3, 2024 3:06 pm
"Good ole po. Judge and jury." -Hate
No... It's not me, Bill. The prosecutor has filed specific American laws that Donald Trump has broken. The laws that Trump broke and all the evidence and proof Smith has against him are what his case against Trump is built on.
So apparently you don't really understand anything about how any of this kinda stuff works...?
by oldedude on October 3, 2024 3:24 pm Lead- I agree. I've seen several other articles the "smith brief" is full of shit, and actually lacking provable facts. LOTS of innuendo, but it'll fall apart (as usual) when it gets to court. Anonymous sources are NOT evidence, much to po's surprise.
by Curt_Anderson on October 3, 2024 3:27 pm"Anonymous sources are NOT evidence, much to po's surprise." ---OD
Does that go for Doug Emhoff's anonymous accuser too?
by Ponderer on October 3, 2024 3:44 pm
"I've seen several other articles the "smith brief" is full of shit, and actually lacking provable facts." -olde dude
olde dude, you are only saying that because it is absolutely essential to keeping your fake reality inflated.
The amount of actual, real, provable evidence is damning and legion. It doesn't disappear just because you won't look at it.
by oldedude on October 3, 2024 3:49 pm Absolutely. Although in a "domestic abuse situation," for an amount of time, she can remain anonymous while the incident is looked at. Once that happens and there are warrants, etc, that all goes away without her showing there is justification for it. Like if someone is filing a complaint against organized crime and has cause to show they're in fear for their life. I don't see that happening in this case. Although, it does sound like a serial abuser much like p diddy. The woman was "flirting" with another man. He beat her for that, showing he "owns" her. That's a problem.
Will anything happen? I doubt it. His wife is too powerful and they'll make it go away by graft and corruption.
by Ponderer on October 3, 2024 4:27 pm
"His wife is too powerful and they'll make it go away by graft and corruption." -olde dude
Why are you never concerned at all when Trump or some other MAGA Hat Republican does that? And there's proof that they did that? Mountains of proof that they did that? Mountains of verified, corroborated, documented, catalogued, and ready to present in court kinda proof.
Quite polarly unlike whatever the hell this pathetic, desperate, baseless, anonymous nonsense is against Doug Emhoff.
by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2024 4:29 pm
"Lead- I agree. I've seen several other articles the "smith brief" is full of shit, and actually lacking provable facts."
Yeah. Did you see The Five today? They were in stitches. And, po? is so earnest, like it's the God's honest, objective truth. Bless po's heart.
by Ponderer on October 3, 2024 4:43 pm
The Five.
You Honor, the prosecution rests.
by HatetheSwamp on October 3, 2024 5:07 pm
po,
Absolutely. The Five is what it is. The point is that the panel, today, was 4/5 non lawyers. And, as seriously as you and your metaphorical Rachel are taking this, they weren't even angry. They were amused.
They were laugh at Jack Smith and Judge Chutkan... and YOU! Bahahahahahahahahahaha.
I'll be stunned if this hurts Trump in November. If anything, it may help him. Ba!
by Ponderer on October 3, 2024 5:23 pm
"The point is that the panel, today, was 4/5 non lawyers. And, as seriously as you and your metaphorical Rachel are taking this, they weren't even angry. They were amused." -Hate
And I'd bet a lot that none of them have even read it. They, like you, don't even know what the hell they are poo-pooing. Not a fuckingclue.
by HatetheSwamp on October 4, 2024 4:58 am
po,
Jesse was reading from it. QUOTING. Laughing his @$$ off! Enjoy!
What makes it more funny to me is that you take the allegations as literal God's honest Gospel truth.
Your earnest deranged TrumpHate is a sight to behold. Bahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh.
Go to 8:10. Join in the laughter.
And, po, you dig chicks. How bout that Jessica Tarlov. Brains and body. She's your type.
View Video
by Ponderer on October 4, 2024 7:11 am
Huh. Yeah, it appears that every single one of them was, perhaps intentionally, ignoring the entire point of this brief.
Since Trump's Supreme Whores decided that a president can have immunity for crimes he commits in the performance of his duty as president, Smith had to resubmit the case without it containing anything that Trump did that might have had anything to do with the official acts of a president.
Everything in this brief lays out how all the crimes that Trump committed where in no conceivable way the official acts of a president, but of a candidate. And Trump was therefore not immune by the SC ruling when he committed those crimes.
Inconvenient piece of fact there for you all I know.
by HatetheSwamp on October 4, 2024 7:26 am
po,
Over the years, I have learnt that in matters of the heart such as this, the best way to gage the import of an event, such as the release of Smith's allegations, check how the other side responds.
That's why I subscribe on YouTube to CNN and MSNBC as well as Fox and Newsmax.
In this case, if Gutfeld and Watters were pi$$ed, screaming, THIS AIN'T FAIR!" We'd know that Smith had landed a knockout punch.
Did you watch the video? They ain't angry. They're elated.
Trust me. The best you can do with this is save it to reread it. It's TDS porn. Fantasy. Nuthin more.
But, by all means, ENJOY!
Oh, and did you catch The Village People part? Keehee ha!
by Ponderer on October 4, 2024 8:57 am
"po,
Over the years, I have learnt that in matters of the heart such as this, the best way to [blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...]" -Hate
This isn't any matter of the heart . It's a matter of Donald Trump having committed various crimes while attempting to overthrow the free and fair election in which he absolutely fuckinglost.
by HatetheSwamp on October 4, 2024 9:11 am
...in your heart, po.
by islander on October 4, 2024 9:23 am
You were right Ponderer, This is a page turner. I've only read a little over half so far and I have to say this should be read by 'everybody' no matter which side they are on. Those who still believe Trump will learn a lot that they won't want to here and for those who saw through Trump's lies this is great confirmation!!
by HatetheSwamp on October 4, 2024 9:53 am
"Those who still believe Trump will learn a lot that they won't want to here and for those who saw through Trump's lies this is great confirmation!!"
Sorry.
Could you put that in other words isle?
by Ponderer on October 4, 2024 10:27 am
Gotta remember his reading disability, Isle...
Go To Top
Comment on: "The Smith Brief on Trump's Non-Immunity"
Submit An Anonymous Comment*
Find old posts & articles
Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category:
Politics+
Religion+
Law & Crime
Military
News Media
History
Health
Sports+
Humor
Entertainment
Misc.
Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page