https://apple.news/ApUqhFCOyReuYC1C2pxJYqQ

Something that actually matters.

It's a delay, a present from the Justices he appointed.

Arguments Apr. 22, decision by the end of June?

It's bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
It's a delay, a present from the Justices he appointed.

Arguments Apr. 22, decision by the end of June?

It's bullsh!t.

we know, kleagle, you don't like legal due process, and are a eugenics fanboy .. we know

I have no issue with this.

This matter is too heavy for our Highest Court not to put a final seal upon.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I have no issue with this.

This matter is too heavy for our Highest Court not to put a final seal upon.

They heard and decided Bush v Gore in what, three days?

And this is supposedly "expedited" when they refused to hear it until after the appelate Court ruled, which it did unanimously?

What is "heavy" about "Nobody is above the Law"?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Nobody is above the Law?

Hunter Biden . when you are rabid about Hunter Biden and his law breaking, we might, maybe, take you seriously

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Nobody is above the Law?

Hunter Biden . when you are rabid about Hunter Biden and his law breaking, we might, maybe, take you seriously

I know you are too stupid to understand this but this case doesn't involve Hunter Biden.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Nobody is above the Law?

Hunter Biden . when you are rabid about Hunter Biden and his law breaking, we might, maybe, take you seriously

I know you are too stupid to understand this but this case doesn't involve Hunter Biden.

yes, one of us is too stupid to understand fair and due process ...
but it's YOUR statement that no one is above the law ...

let that sink in

take as long as you need

oh, hunter isn't officially a member of hamas, you don't HAVE to defend him for that

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
It's a delay, a present from the Justices he appointed.

Arguments Apr. 22, decision by the end of June?

It's bullshit.

I dunno. It might be perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
It's a delay, a present from the Justices he appointed.

Arguments Apr. 22, decision by the end of June?

It's bullshit.

I dunno. It might be perfect.

I don't see how, the entire trial is on hold pending that opinion and likely can't be concluded before the election would be an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I have no issue with this.

This matter is too heavy for our Highest Court not to put a final seal upon.

They heard and decided Bush v Gore in what, three days?

And this is supposedly "expedited" when they refused to hear it until after the appelate Court ruled, which it did unanimously?

What is "heavy" about "Nobody is above the Law"?

What is heavy is the limitations of presidential immunity. I am going to assume the DC Circuit is going to be upheld 100 percent by the S. Ct. The issue still requires our highest court to have its say.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I have no issue with this.

This matter is too heavy for our Highest Court not to put a final seal upon.

They heard and decided Bush v Gore in what, three days?

And this is supposedly "expedited" when they refused to hear it until after the appelate Court ruled, which it did unanimously?

What is "heavy" about "Nobody is above the Law"?

What is heavy is the limitations of presidential immunity. I am going to assume the DC Circuit is going to be upheld 100 percent by the S. Ct. The issue still requires our highest court to have its say.

Delay of this magnitude is unconscionable and totally unnecessary, a gift to Trump in his quest to run out the ticking clocks.

It will also add impetus to efforts to expand the Court if Democrats win big in November.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I have no issue with this.

This matter is too heavy for our Highest Court not to put a final seal upon.

They heard and decided Bush v Gore in what, three days?

And this is supposedly "expedited" when they refused to hear it until after the appelate Court ruled, which it did unanimously?

What is "heavy" about "Nobody is above the Law"?

What is heavy is the limitations of presidential immunity. I am going to assume the DC Circuit is going to be upheld 100 percent by the S. Ct. The issue still requires our highest court to have its say.

Delay of this magnitude is unconscionable and totally unnecessary, a gift to Trump in his quest to run out the ticking clocks.

It will also add impetus to efforts to expand the Court if Democrats win big in November.

Your "democracy" is not much better than tin pot dictatorship!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I have no issue with this.

This matter is too heavy for our Highest Court not to put a final seal upon.

They heard and decided Bush v Gore in what, three days?

And this is supposedly "expedited" when they refused to hear it until after the appelate Court ruled, which it did unanimously?

What is "heavy" about "Nobody is above the Law"?

What is heavy is the limitations of presidential immunity. I am going to assume the DC Circuit is going to be upheld 100 percent by the S. Ct. The issue still requires our highest court to have its say.

Delay of this magnitude is unconscionable and totally unnecessary, a gift to Trump in his quest to run out the ticking clocks.

It will also add impetus to efforts to expand the Court if Democrats win big in November.

Your "democracy" is not much better than tin pot dictatorship!

I wish I could argue with you but brazenly political moves by our highest Court makes it hard.

I'm assuming that when Trump loses the election, again, he can still be prosecuted?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm assuming that when Trump loses the election, again, he can still be prosecuted?

If the Supreme Court invents Presidential Immunity Joe can just have his plane shot down.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm assuming that when Trump loses the election, again, he can still be prosecuted?

Yes. So long as the Supreme Court does not extend presidential immunity to his actions as president once he left office.

I doubt this will happen.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm assuming that when Trump loses the election, again, he can still be prosecuted?

Yes. So long as the Supreme Court does not extend presidential immunity to his actions as president once he left office.

I doubt this will happen.

What, exactly, would be "actions as president" once he left office?

He wasn't president once he left office.

President Trump is arguing his actions as President create immunity that follows him, attaches to him after he left office.

Specifically, he is now arguing since he was not impeached and convicted in the Senate, that presidential immunity is unlimited and followed him out the door for actions done while president.

That's a distinction that I didn't get, until you said it.

Also, as I recall, the GOPer senate used the excuse for not convicting per impeachment that conviction was a matter for the rule of law - the courts and due process.

Now Trump is playing the other side of the same coin.

Quote:
"his actions as president once he left office"

IOW, like Nixon was gonna be indicted after he left office for crimes committed while in office? But he escaped with Ford's pardon. The rationale was so the country could move on.

No one will pardon Trump except a republican, who would do it 10,000 times for effect and affect - to make the point, which everyone knows what that is. There will be no moving on for the country with a simple pardon for Trump. Criminal convictions are the best by means of long and agonizing trials and evidence, and consequences accordingly. We know enough of the evidence already but there's a lot more.

The question still remains - can he beat the rap? (beat the rap in American English. slang. to succeed in evading the penalty for a crime)

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I have no issue with this.

This matter is too heavy for our Highest Court not to put a final seal upon.

They heard and decided Bush v Gore in what, three days?

And this is supposedly "expedited" when they refused to hear it until after the appelate Court ruled, which it did unanimously?

What is "heavy" about "Nobody is above the Law"?

What is heavy is the limitations of presidential immunity. I am going to assume the DC Circuit is going to be upheld 100 percent by the S. Ct. The issue still requires our highest court to have its say.

Delay of this magnitude is unconscionable and totally unnecessary, a gift to Trump in his quest to run out the ticking clocks.

It will also add impetus to efforts to expand the Court if Democrats win big in November.

Plus Chutkan is granting him a day's grace for every day the trial start date is delayed.

Sumbitch.

The people have a right to know about the kind of trash that they're voting for, but if they can't figure it out from what was televised and the evidence discussed since then there's no hope for them.

The Special Prosecutor narrowly tailored the indictment to avoid spurious delays, since the delay has been engineered by MAGAts on the Court he should now drop "speaking" indictments on all the unindicted co-conspirators, including Members of Congress and Ginni Thomas and explicate the details of the conspiracy.

The Special Prosecutor who was not appropriately given the job? That guy?

quote:

The people have a right to know about the kind of trash that they're voting for

They know already. That's why they will vote for him. That's why he is the GOPer candidate of choice. They want him - specifically him. His baggage, to some of us, are blessings or gifts to others.

https://www.texastribune.org/2...retribution-justice/

Trump vows retribution at Waco rally: “I am your warrior, I am your justice, .... I am your retribution.”

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
The Special Prosecutor who was not appropriately given the job? That guy?

Now you are a scholar on DOJ procedures?

Naw. He just listens to far-right "news" and believes them. It's a feed trough for those who need to be told what to think.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
The Special Prosecutor who was not appropriately given the job? That guy?

Now you are a scholar on DOJ procedures?

Edwin Meese made a convincing argument in his brief to the Court. I think he’s a little more on the ball than you ever have been or hope to be Skippy.

If we really want to get tangled around the what ifs lets try some assumptions. First the SC decides that Trump does NOT have immunity. Number two that his trial is delayed until after the November election. Number three he wins the election. Number four he is convicted in his trial.

So now we have a president-elect/president that is a convicted felon. Can he go to jail? Can he serve as president from jail? Talk about a screwed-up mess. OMG!

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

The people have a right to know about the kind of trash that they're voting for

They know already. That's why they will vote for him. That's why he is the GOPer candidate of choice. They want him - specifically him. His baggage, to some of us, are blessings or gifts to others.

https://www.texastribune.org/2...retribution-justice/

Trump vows retribution at Waco rally: “I am your warrior, I am your justice, .... I am your retribution.”

What retribution does the average citizen need?

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
If we really want to get tangled around the what ifs lets try some assumptions. First the SC decides that Trump does NOT have immunity. Number two that his trial is delayed until after the November election. Number three he wins the election. Number four he is convicted in his trial.

So now we have a president-elect/president that is a convicted felon. Can he go to jail? Can he serve as president from jail? Talk about a screwed-up mess. OMG!

Once the trial starts can it continue even if he is in office?

I expect that if he wins that the trial will not proceed.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
The Special Prosecutor who was not appropriately given the job? That guy?

Now you are a scholar on DOJ procedures?

Edwin Meese made a convincing argument in his brief to the Court. I think he’s a little more on the ball than you ever have been or hope to be Skippy.

Maybe convincing to anyone, like yourself, who hasn't bothered to read Smith's original appointment, or the legal authorities it cites that authorize the Attorney General to do exactly what he did.

And Meese just allowed his name to be put on what Federalist and Heritage lawyers drafted.

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
If we really want to get tangled around the what ifs lets try some assumptions. First the SC decides that Trump does NOT have immunity. Number two that his trial is delayed until after the November election. Number three he wins the election. Number four he is convicted in his trial.

So now we have a president-elect/president that is a convicted felon. Can he go to jail? Can he serve as president from jail? Talk about a screwed-up mess. OMG!

The DOJ Policy is about investigations and indictments close to an election, not trials. No reason Trump can't be tried without regard to when folks vote.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...8fbf02098160ec&ei=19

Supreme Court Will Likely Rule Against Donald Trump—Here's Why

Greg Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University in New York, was reacting to the U.S Supreme Court's announcement on Wednesday that it will hear Donald Trump's argument that he has presidential immunity from his election fraud case in Washington, D.C. He told Newsweek that the Supreme Court was unlikely to view Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election result as a "core" activity of the presidency, or accept that he was acting in the interests of the country.

"A president should certainly be immune from criminal prosecution for some core official acts, but not for acts done for personal gain or unconnected with the president's official duties," he said. "The president should be immune from wartime decisions, for example."
Tanya Chutkan, the trial judge in the election fraud case, has already refused Trump's presidential immunity argument, as has the Washington appellate court.

Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, told Newsweek that the Supreme Court will probably refuse Trump's presidential immunity claim and that his election fraud trial could begin as early as July.

"It remains likely that with an [oral] argument the week of April 22, we can have a decision by Memorial Day if the Court treats the case with the urgency that the public has a right to expect," he said. "Then Judge Chutkan can begin pretrial proceedings in June and hold a trial in July."

Gillers said he is undecided on whether the Supreme Court should have taken the case.

"I'm of two minds. As a scholar, I think it is important to have a Supreme Court opinion on the scope of a president's criminal immunity.

"On the other hand, I also think the public has a strong interest in learning sooner rather than later what the special counsel is prepared to prove and what a jury will decide. So I also favor a quick decision and a trial by early summer."

Gillers told Newsweek on February 5 that Trump's arguments for presidential immunity are "exceedingly weak." At the time, he said Trump's real agenda is to delay the election subversion trial until after the 2024 presidential election.

The former president's legal team will claim in Supreme Court oral arguments that presidential immunity should invalidate Trump's federal election subversion charges, which followed an investigation by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Smith's probe focused on Trump's actions leading up to and during the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, when a group of his supporters violently protested the election, which Trump had said was stolen.

Smith also investigated Trump's alleged efforts to submit false slates of electors to the Electoral College. Indicted on four felony counts, Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and maintains that he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

The Supreme Court wrote in its unsigned order on Wednesday that it would answer the following question: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

Separately, Trump is facing 40 federal charges over allegations he retained classified papers after leaving the White House in January 2021 and then obstructed efforts by the relevant authorities to have them returned.

In August 2022, Trump's Mar-a-Lago private members club was raided by federal agents who recovered large numbers of classified papers. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and strongly denies any wrongdoing.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
The Special Prosecutor who was not appropriately given the job? That guy?

Now you are a scholar on DOJ procedures?

Edwin Meese made a convincing argument in his brief to the Court. I think he’s a little more on the ball than you ever have been or hope to be Skippy.

Maybe convincing to anyone, like yourself, who hasn't bothered to read Smith's original appointment, or the legal authorities it cites that authorize the Attorney General to do exactly what he did.

And Meese just allowed his name to be put on what Federalist and Heritage lawyers drafted.

The Heritage Foundation sums it up nicely. Easy to read bits even for you. Maybe check it out?

No court has entertained disqualify, removing Jack Smith.

This is a red herring.

Or is not even before the S. Ct. President Trump is not going to be happy w the S. Ct. when the decision is reached.

This will just be presented to a jury.

Why don’t you analyze old Jackie for us then?

All I can say regarding SCOTUS revising the claim is good. Maybe we will finally resolve this mess.

Trump charged/not and guilty/not is way overdue to be settled… but the media needs a paycheck, as do the lawyers.

I get that Trump wants to delay as much as possible. Somehow the folks that are objecting to his continual delays are all ok with it when it’s a death penalty case and that judgement being administered being delayed.

Frankly, I doubt that Trump is going to be happy with the result. But given how SCOTUS usually behaves, neither will the other side.

Frankly, I’m going to be very happy come November 6th and it calms down for a few weeks.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Why don’t you analyze old Jackie for us then?

Do you mean Jack Smith? Tge prosecutor who has survived one appellate court action to prevent this prosecution? That gentleman is doing just fine.

No court has not on your red herring. It is a stupid thing to bring up now. The Supreme Court per its grant of cert is not even looking at that issue.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...1baa1ce7c05c49&ei=16

Supreme Court Will 'Eviscerate' Jack Smith's Case—Legal Analyst
Story by Ewan Palmer • 20h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...id=socialshare&t=207

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell explains how the Supreme Court dismissed half of Donald Trump’s immunity claims in deciding to hear the case. Neal Katyal joins to discuss how he would answer the narrow question the Supreme Court will consider on immunity and what the court’s “slow schedule” means for Trump “evading the law” by delaying the trial.

This is going to end w a majority opinion holding that President Trump can be prosecuted for what Jack Smith has indicted him for.

Likewise, the FL documents charges which is the best case.