Your post is weird. I was responding to that weirdo Newman about his weird question and you weirdly decided to chime in with a superfluous statement. That's weird. Like liberal weird. Are you a liberal? You post like one.
Probably not by any of that guy’s definitions. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if you were more or less a classical liberal in the way that many conservatives (as well as non-conservatives) sometimes describe themselves. So that would be one kind of definition I might see as applicable. but perhaps I’m wrong.
BREAKING: Jack SMITH has gone straight to SCOTUS on the question of presidential immunity for Donald Trump's Washington, D.C. charges and he's seeking to expedite the matter.
Sometimes I wonder if Trumpers think through some of Trumps own legal filings completely and recognize what exactly they are supporting.
for example:
If Trump has absolute Presidential immunity (aka Monarchy) to rile up a crowd to stop certification of the vote then Biden can do the same. And Biden is free to conjure up even more dastardly crime schemes to overturn a future election too.
why? Because of the absolute presidential immunity Trump says they have.
I've wondered that too. If ginning up fake electoral certificates is legal, what stops Biden and Harris from doing the same thing on January 6, 2025? If Biden finds himself behind in electoral votes after the 2024 election, it would be easy enough to find some alternate electors to sign alternate electoral certificates and hand them to Harris on January 6, 2025 and let her decide which candidate has the best looking certificates. The legality of that procedure is pretty much Trump's defense to all this.
12
0
Tacopina Joe and his throbbing Temple vein of Doom
I've wondered that too. If ginning up fake electoral certificates is legal, what stops Biden and Harris from doing the same thing on January 6, 2025? If Biden finds himself behind in electoral votes after the 2024 election, it would be easy enough to find some alternate electors to sign alternate electoral certificates and hand them to Harris on January 6, 2025 and let her decide which candidate has the best looking certificates. The legality of that procedure is pretty much Trump's defense to all this.
Exactly. If it was okay, and the only thing stopping it was the 'cowardice' of VP Pence, then LET IT RIP! Right, trumpers? We saw some 'mules'! We saw election workers bringing in their sandwiches in bags and it was suspicious! Biden can do it, right?
Or maybe it was a crime. Rule of law. NO KINGS, NO DICTATORS.
Sometimes I wonder if Trumpers think through some of Trumps own legal filings completely and recognize what exactly they are supporting.
for example:
If Trump has absolute Presidential immunity (aka Monarchy) to rile up a crowd to stop certification of the vote then Biden can do the same. And Biden is free to conjure up even more dastardly crime schemes to overturn a future election too.
why? Because of the absolute presidential immunity Trump says they have.
I've wondered that too. If ginning up fake electoral certificates is legal, what stops Biden and Harris from doing the same thing on January 6, 2025? If Biden finds himself behind in electoral votes after the 2024 election, it would be easy enough to find some alternate electors to sign alternate electoral certificates and hand them to Harris on January 6, 2025 and let her decide which candidate has the best looking certificates. The legality of that procedure is pretty much Trump's defense to all this.
Yes. And if the counts don’t add up the way Biden wants them, he can send people to seize those states voting machines. Declare the election over until he gets to the bottom of it.
Totally legal with Trumps absolute Presidential immunity argument.
That’s not my understanding at all. A SC decision to reject an immunity defense would be definitive and could not be appealed. I doubt Trump’s legal team believes it could ultimately win an immunity defense in the SC, but going through an appeals process could delay the trial to the point the trial wouldn’t happen until after a Trump presidency which is why Smith is requesting an immediate resolution on the issue.
I understand a SCOTUS decision is definitive and can not be appealed.
I believe I was just pondering the status of the district court case through all the options the SCOTUS may take. The SCOTUS can deny this prosecution petition for certiorari without deciding anything about presidential immunity, and let the district court and appeals process proceed up to the SCOTUS in the usual fashion. It's difficult to predict what will happen, but its seems to me that March 4 trial date is unlikely with all this going on.
The SC does have the power to review a case before it has gone through an appeals process. Given that Trump’s immunity claim is baseless and a blatant delay tactic, the SC not deciding to act now would be effectively letting him off the hook.
The guy was a billionaire businessman in NYC real estate and in gambling for decades. Where are all the indictments pre his presidency?
You make good case for more indictments in the past. indeed. But at this time, Trump is being indicted for his recent crimes which rose to the level of endangering our country.
And of course his blatant business fraud.
pretty simple stuff really.
What Newname is doing is this;
”My guy has been a criminal since forever. So the fact that he is finally getting caught is proof that it is political”
Donnie is attempting to use the same defense which will not turn out well for him.
No idea but I suspect Trump, like every other billionaire, has been less than clean in his business dealings.
However, this weaponization of the Justice System to go after the main political opponent is far more dangerous than anything Trump did as president.
Hell, Bush lied us into war and his successor, Obama, instead of prosecuting Bush, said we will look forward and not backwards! Of course the Obama admin was going on to commit its own war crimes
I understand a SCOTUS decision is definitive and can not be appealed.
I believe I was just pondering the status of the district court case through all the options the SCOTUS may take. The SCOTUS can deny this prosecution petition for certiorari without deciding anything about presidential immunity, and let the district court and appeals process proceed up to the SCOTUS in the usual fashion. It's difficult to predict what will happen, but its seems to me that March 4 trial date is unlikely with all this going on.
The SC does have the power to review a case before it has gone through an appeals process. Given that Trump’s immunity claim is baseless and a blatant delay tactic, the SC not deciding to act now would be effectively letting him off the hook.
I'm aware the SC can review the case before appeals. They can also deny the petition without ruling on presidential immunity issues at all, and let the appeals proceed normally. AND when the appeals are done, the SC can deny review again and let stand whatever the appeals court does.
I think it's quite likely that the SC denies this petition. They hate wading into things when they can easily defer it until later. They may be motivated by the urgency of keeping the trial date, however, and decide to get this done fast because of national importance. But even if they do, I don't see how the trial date is kept at March 4.
Denying the petition would not be letting Trump off the hook. It would have no affect at all on the status of his immunity arguments, which are currently denied (in part). Also, his presidential immunity and the double jeopardy claims are not baseless. If nothing else, they have never been decided before by any court other than Chutkan last week, so they warrant a look at a higher level some day. And I don't think they are baseless in any case. Trump's brief made some compelling points. I don't think they are correct, but they aren't baseless. Arguing that Vice President's can decide fake elector certificates is baseless. Presidential immunity claims are not.
No, not at all. The only federal indictments that I'm aware of (and which I'm sure you've never read) are the Bathroom case and the Fake Electors case, which primarily relate to crimes committed from January through July 2021 and from November 2020 through January 2021, respectively. So really the only AG who could have been running the DOJ during those indictments is Garland who was sworn in as AG in March 2021. So, you're pretty weird for thinking any of this is weird. What isn't weird to you?
Huh?
The guy was a billionaire businessman in NYC real estate and in gambling for decades. Where are all the indictments pre his presidency?
You could try to answer your own rhetorical inquiry using the "logic" I've seen you employ with respect to other elitest, celebrity billionaires and their lack of criminal charges. You won't do so because your brain is all over the place with conflicting conspiracy theories, but you could do it if a brief moment of clarity happened to fall on you.
BREAKING: Jack SMITH has gone straight to SCOTUS on the question of presidential immunity for Donald Trump's Washington, D.C. charges and he's seeking to expedite the matter.
Fast Track for Delaying Donnie. Love to see it.
What will be interesting is whether Trump agrees that the SCOTUS should review the immunity claims. He has previously said that he will be vindicated by the SCOTUS, but a lot of what Trump says outside of court is inconsistent with what he says inside court. He probably doesn't want the SCOTUS going near this right now because (1) he's likely to lose and (2) he wants to delay everything he can. So he may oppose the petition (and I think he has 30 days to do so), and say that everything should go through appeals court first.
I'm not sure if the SCOTUS can grant the petition without hearing from the other party first. Anyone know? Could the SCOTUS just read the prosecution's petition and grant it tomorrow if they think it is important?
What will be interesting is whether Trump agrees that the SCOTUS should review the immunity claims. He has previously said that he will be vindicated by the SCOTUS, but a lot of what Trump says outside of court is inconsistent with what he says inside court. He probably doesn't want the SCOTUS going near this right now because (1) he's likely to lose and (2) he wants to delay everything he can. So he may oppose the petition (and I think he has 30 days to do so), and say that everything should go through appeals court first.
I'm not sure if the SCOTUS can grant the petition without hearing from the other party first. Anyone know? Could the SCOTUS just read the prosecution's petition and grant it tomorrow if they think it is important?
These questions were quickly answered. Trumps spokesman is crying foul over it and attacking “deranged” Jack Smith. Trumps legal strategy is one dimensional. DELAY, Delay and then delay some more.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear the request. It will be interesting to see if Clarence Thomas recuses. What with his wife being a public big lie insurrection supporter and all.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear the request. It will be interesting to see if Clarence Thomas recuses. What with his wife being a public big lie insurrection supporter and all.
That is a good joke. Thomas recuse himself? Never! He's been bought, so needs to provide a vote.
What will be interesting is whether Trump agrees that the SCOTUS should review the immunity claims. He has previously said that he will be vindicated by the SCOTUS, but a lot of what Trump says outside of court is inconsistent with what he says inside court. He probably doesn't want the SCOTUS going near this right now because (1) he's likely to lose and (2) he wants to delay everything he can. So he may oppose the petition (and I think he has 30 days to do so), and say that everything should go through appeals court first.
I'm not sure if the SCOTUS can grant the petition without hearing from the other party first. Anyone know? Could the SCOTUS just read the prosecution's petition and grant it tomorrow if they think it is important?
These questions were quickly answered. Trumps spokesman is crying foul over it and attacking “deranged” Jack Smith. Trumps legal strategy is one dimensional. DELAY, Delay and then delay some more.
HAHA! Man, Trump ties himself in knots. So, he has to file an opposition to the petition by 12/20. How the hell do you write that brief? What can you credibly say? "Uh, this presidential immunity issue that I've been talking up for months that I believe absolutely immunizes me from prosecution and requires immediate dismissal of the case against me . . . uh, you Supremes stay away from it and should not address it or rule on it because . . . . uh . . . well . . . uh . . ."
These questions were quickly answered. Trumps spokesman is crying foul over it and attacking “deranged” Jack Smith. Trumps legal strategy is one dimensional. DELAY, Delay and then delay some more.
HAHA! Man, Trump ties himself in knots. So, he has to file an opposition to the petition by 12/20. How the hell do you write that brief? What can you credibly say? "Uh, this presidential immunity issue that I've been talking up for months that I believe absolutely immunizes me from prosecution and requires immediate dismissal of the case against me . . . uh, you Supremes stay away from it and should not address it or rule on it because . . . . uh . . . well . . . uh . . ."
“Your honors, this is totally unfair to me! I wanted you to review this Presidential immunity stuff but only after I delayed it in a lower court for 3-6 months at least. How dare I be denied my plan to delay, delay and delay more by a deranged Jack Smith. And how dare you rule against me as I fight for the people”.
Chutkan stayed the Fake Electors case pending appeal (including, presumably, the petition to the SCOTUS).
I don't see any way that the March 4 trial date happens. IF, and it is a big IF, the SCOTUS grants the petition and then rejects Trump's immunity claims, it will be in February at the very earliest. That would require at least a 3 month bump in the trial date to June, if that is even available. If the SCOTUS rejects the petition and waits for a petition from the appeals court decision, I can see easily see this trial scheduled for the end of 2024 or early 2025.
Some big appeals and SCOTUS decisions on this coming. Huge.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed to expedite the appeal. Trump's opening brief is due 12/23, the prosecution response is due 12/30 and Trump's reply is due 1/2/24. Serious expedition.
Trump actually complained that it's too fast for him, even though it's HIS appeal of HIS immunity issue which HE fully briefed in the district court. Go figure. Again, it's like "Uh, that one issue that I've been saying totally vindicates me and requires all charges be dismissed immediately? Uh, take your time on that, because uh . . . you know . . . just go real slow okay?"
It's a weird situation with the Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS both dealing with this at the same time. Not sure what affects what. This Appeals Court schedule would seem to make the SCOTUS more likely to deny the petition and see what the Appeals Court does. In which case, almost no way this trial takes place until late 2023 at best.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed to expedite the appeal. Trump's opening brief is due 12/23, the prosecution response is due 12/30 and Trump's reply is due 1/2/24. Serious expedition.
Trump actually complained that it's too fast for him, even though it's HIS appeal of HIS immunity issue which HE fully briefed in the district court. Go figure. Again, it's like "Uh, that one issue that I've been saying totally vindicates me and requires all charges be dismissed immediately? Uh, take your time on that, because uh . . . you know . . . just go real slow okay?"
It's a weird situation with the Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS both dealing with this at the same time. Not sure what affects what. This Appeals Court schedule would seem to make the SCOTUS more likely to deny the petition and see what the Appeals Court does. In which case, almost no way this trial takes place until late 2023 at best.
The trial is currently scheduled for March 4, 2024. Trump’s attorneys were hoping an appeal process over the immunity claim would push the trial past the election date.
You’re probably right that the Supreme Court will kick it back to the lower courts.
0
0
Tacopina Joe and his throbbing Temple vein of Doom
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed to expedite the appeal. Trump's opening brief is due 12/23, the prosecution response is due 12/30 and Trump's reply is due 1/2/24. Serious expedition.
Trump actually complained that it's too fast for him, even though it's HIS appeal of HIS immunity issue which HE fully briefed in the district court. Go figure. Again, it's like "Uh, that one issue that I've been saying totally vindicates me and requires all charges be dismissed immediately? Uh, take your time on that, because uh . . . you know . . . just go real slow okay?"
It's a weird situation with the Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS both dealing with this at the same time. Not sure what affects what. This Appeals Court schedule would seem to make the SCOTUS more likely to deny the petition and see what the Appeals Court does. In which case, almost no way this trial takes place until late 2023 at best.
US vs Nixon -- prosecution requested fast judgement, and SCOTUS obliged because it was crucial to democracy. In this situation, if trial is delayed and Trump wins, then there will be NO trial. Justice denied. Democracy imperiled. Constitution shredded. SCOTUS would not get the chance to rule on the issue.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed to expedite the appeal. Trump's opening brief is due 12/23, the prosecution response is due 12/30 and Trump's reply is due 1/2/24. Serious expedition.
Trump actually complained that it's too fast for him, even though it's HIS appeal of HIS immunity issue which HE fully briefed in the district court. Go figure. Again, it's like "Uh, that one issue that I've been saying totally vindicates me and requires all charges be dismissed immediately? Uh, take your time on that, because uh . . . you know . . . just go real slow okay?"
It's a weird situation with the Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS both dealing with this at the same time. Not sure what affects what. This Appeals Court schedule would seem to make the SCOTUS more likely to deny the petition and see what the Appeals Court does. In which case, almost no way this trial takes place until late 2023 at best.
US vs Nixon -- prosecution requested fast judgement, and SCOTUS obliged because it was crucial to democracy. In this situation, if trial is delayed and Trump wins, then there will be NO trial. Justice denied. Democracy imperiled. Constitution shredded. SCOTUS would not get the chance to rule on the issue.
This is the DOJ point. The people. The citizens of this country. The voters have a right for this matter to be tried and answered in court of law before the election.
After hearing Trump playing the victim and bellyaching about himself for the last 7 years, it is refreshing to have the citizens right brought to the fore.
in fact the indictment itself is centered around Trumps goal of taking away the citizens vote by overturning the results of their vote.
Trump will never understand that his crimes are not just about himself because he is a malignant narcissist but we get it. Hopefully the courts get it too.
