I’m sitting in a restaurant having some darn good Asian food. There’s a TV on, but mute. The Trump story is on. For us laypeople, what does it mean? Can prosecutors say “Tough shit, you’re not immune”, do they have to wait for SCOTUS to weigh in?

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:
I’m sitting in a restaurant having some darn good Asian food. There’s a TV on, but mute. The Trump story is on. For us laypeople, what does it mean? Can prosecutors say “Tough shit, you’re not immune”, do they have to wait for SCOTUS to weigh in?

It's already scheduled for argument before the D.C. Court of Appeals starting January 9th.

So another, lower court will hear it, but Trump can appeal if he loses. Right?

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:
So another, lower court will hear it, but Trump can appeal if he loses. Right?

Yep, it gives him some delay, which is always his strategy.

Then he'll whine because his trial is during the campaign.

In theory, he could lose. Then the S.Ct., deny cert, or vise versa being win at the DC Circuit with the S. Ct., denying cert.

I do not believe either would happen.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
In theory, he could lose. Then the S.Ct., deny cert, or vise versa being win at the DC Circuit with the S. Ct., denying cert.

I do not believe either would happen.

If Presidents are immune from prosecution for criminal acts unrelated to their official duties were don't have a Constitutional Republic, we have a monarchy with high turnover.

This almost certainly means his March 4 trial date will be delayed because of appeals which was his whole strategy from the start

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
In theory, he could lose. Then the S.Ct., deny cert, or vise versa being win at the DC Circuit with the S. Ct., denying cert.

I do not believe either would happen.

If Presidents are immune from prosecution for criminal acts unrelated to their official duties were don't have a Constitutional Republic, we have a monarchy with high turnover.

I do not think he is so immune. I think the Nixon and Clinton case is directly on point.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
In theory, he could lose. Then the S.Ct., deny cert, or vise versa being win at the DC Circuit with the S. Ct., denying cert.

I do not believe either would happen.

If Presidents are immune from prosecution for criminal acts unrelated to their official duties were don't have a Constitutional Republic, we have a monarchy with high turnover.

I do not think he is so immune. I think the Nixon and Clinton case is directly on point.

If precedent still has any value, you're right.

Does it with this activist, partisan Court?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...15f5a6e6389a51&ei=81

SCOTUS to Jack Smith: Nope
Story by Nikki McCann Ramirez • 4h

My prediction?

The D.C. Circuit will quickly find there's no immunity and the Supremes will refuse to hear it.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
My prediction?

The D.C. Circuit will quickly find there's no immunity and the Supremes will refuse to hear it.

Mark that for future reference.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...cb01c80a4e2e5e&ei=18

Scotus May Avoid Trump Immunity Request: Akerman

The Supreme Court refused to fast track a decision whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for seeking to overturn his 2020 election loss. Former Assistant US Attorney Nick Akerman gives his take on this, as well as the two Michigan canvassers Trump apparently called in 2020, according to Detroit News, to not sign the certification of the election. Akerman says this is devastating evidence, in an interview with Kailey Leinz on "Balance of Power."

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
My prediction?

The D.C. Circuit will quickly find there's no immunity and the Supremes will refuse to hear it.

Mark that for future reference.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...cb01c80a4e2e5e&ei=18

Scotus May Avoid Trump Immunity Request: Akerman

The Supreme Court refused to fast track a decision whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for seeking to overturn his 2020 election loss. Former Assistant US Attorney Nick Akerman gives his take on this, as well as the two Michigan canvassers Trump apparently called in 2020, according to Detroit News, to not sign the certification of the election. Akerman says this is devastating evidence, in an interview with Kailey Leinz on "Balance of Power."

I'm not betting my favorite testicle, the middle one, on it but it would let those cowards duck making the decision and have the side effect of minimizing the delay.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected those arguments in a ruling on Dec. 1. Trump appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which on Dec. 18 set the case for argument on Jan. 9, 2024.

https://www.scotusblog.com/202...20Jan.%209%2C%202024.

By Amy Howe
on Dec 22, 2023 at 3:26 pm

=================================================================

See video:

https://youtu.be/LDTmOChmkG4?si=VcCl6neSt0sNN2NA

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...eae5e66ad57f2b&ei=83

‘I Want To Issue A Correction’: George Conway Challenges Tapper’s Claim SCOTUS Ruling ‘A Big Win’ For Trump

Story by Jennifer Bowers Bahney • 15h

Conservative attorney George Conway challenged Jake Tapper’s claim that Friday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was a “big win” for Donald Trump.

Earlier in the day the court rejected Jack Smith’s request to immediately hear Trump’s claim that presidential immunity protected him from prosecution in the election subversion case.

“I want to issue a correction from your opening and from something you said last segment, that this is a ‘big win’ for Donald Trump,” Conway said while joining Tapper on CNN. “I don’t think this is a big win. I don’t think it’s a big deal.”

“It’s not a correction so much as a disagreement,” Tapper said and Conway agreed, “A friendly disagreement.”

“I think it’s not a big deal because I don’t think it’s going to affect the schedule that much, and I think it actually shows the weakness of Donald Trump’s immunity claim. And I say it as somebody, as Norm Eisen said to me in the green room, I’m the only person in the universe who ever won, wrote a brief that won, a Supreme Court immunity case… that was against the president — Bill Clinton, Paula Jones.”

Conway said he would not be surprised if the appeals court rendered a decision “in a matter of days.”

“I just don’t think there’s anything there to the claims that Trump has been making,” he said. “I think this case will be disposed of by the intermediate appellate court by the middle of January, by the third week in January at the latest. And I think at that point…the stay will lift and they can immediately start proceeding toward trial in the district court.”

Conway said that could happen as soon as March.

“What will happen at that point is the onus will shift to Donald Trump and his lawyers to go to the Supreme Court…and say, ‘Stop this! Stop this train now!’ So, all of a sudden, you’re gonna see a reversal, and Trump is going to say, ‘You’ve got to move fast! You’ve got to move fast!'”

Conway added that the case could still be tried in the summer.

“There’s another possibility I wouldn’t discount. Which is, this case is so meritless that the Supreme Court could just decide, we’re not going to hear it right now,” Conway said. He added, “The cases [Trump] relies on are civil cases, and that just does not carry on over to immunize a president from committing crimes against the very country he’s sworn to uphold the laws of.”

Looks like SCOTUS gave a big lump of coal for Christmas. Smith can at least keep himself warm with it.

quote:

Looks like SCOTUS gave themselves a big lump of coal for Christmas.

And nothing burgers too.

A Christmas song for Trumpsters:

https://youtu.be/KdyTesqYnHY?si=U29gzoshUrNnXmch

Happy Christmas and New Year

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
My prediction?

The D.C. Circuit will quickly find there's no immunity and the Supremes will refuse to hear it.

Let us hope so.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Looks like SCOTUS gave themselves a big lump of coal for Christmas.

And nothing burgers too.

I lose considerable respect for you when you post a quote but change the words to suit your opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
This almost certainly means his March 4 trial date will be delayed because of appeals which was his whole strategy from the start

Correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Looks like SCOTUS gave themselves a big lump of coal for Christmas.

And nothing burgers too.

I lose considerable respect for you when you post a quote but change the words to suit your opinion.

Did you ever have any respect for me to lose?

I considered putting the added word in parentheses, but figured Italics was sufficient. I'll try to remember to not take that short-cut again.

Sorry it that isn't good enough for you. If that's all you worry about, congrats.

BTW, are you a cat person?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
i am voting for trump, 6 times

weird, seems a bit underhanded

You are a closet AH Jeffee.

Okay if I apologize to Ann will I still be respected in the morning?

I sorta admitted that my italics insert into a quote was not right.

I don't like it when others do it to me either.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
You are a closet AH Jeffee.

Okay if I apologize to Ann will I still be respected in the morning?

I sorta admitted that my italics insert into a quote was not right.

I don't like it when others do it to me either.

Yes, but you may regret it later. I did.

quote:

Yes, but you may regret it later. I did.

I like to deal with regret that I have a chance to fix now, not past or future.

Hopefully, future regrets will be from something new, not because I failed to learn from the past.

Forgiveness is in the domain of one who has a choice, and such choice is a reflection, not a projection.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Looks like SCOTUS gave themselves a big lump of coal for Christmas.

And nothing burgers too.

I lose considerable respect for you when you post a quote but change the words to suit your opinion.

Did you ever have any respect for me to lose?

I considered putting the added word in parentheses, but figured Italics was sufficient. I'll try to remember to not take that short-cut again.

Sorry it that isn't good enough for you. If that's all you worry about, congrats.

BTW, are you a cat person?

Well, I don't fight with you. Nor nit pick you. I know your beliefs and opinions. I do not try to change yours because I know that is not possible. You're free to make your own comments but don't 'scrooge' anyone else's.

There are two cats on the farm. Two dogs. Six sheep. Fifteen rabbits and unknown number of chickens. Why do you ask?

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
You are a closet AH Jeffee.

Okay if I apologize to Ann will I still be respected in the morning?

I sorta admitted that my italics insert into a quote was not right.

I don't like it when others do it to me either.

Yes, but you may regret it later. I did.

Why's that?

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Looks like SCOTUS gave themselves a big lump of coal for Christmas.

And nothing burgers too.

I lose considerable respect for you when you post a quote but change the words to suit your opinion.

Did you ever have any respect for me to lose?

I considered putting the added word in parentheses, but figured Italics was sufficient. I'll try to remember to not take that short-cut again.

Sorry it that isn't good enough for you. If that's all you worry about, congrats.

BTW, are you a cat person?

Well, I don't fight with you. Nor nit pick you. I know your beliefs and opinions. I do not try to change yours because I know that is not possible. You're free to make your own comments but don't 'scrooge' anyone else's.

There are two cats on the farm. Two dogs. Six sheep. Fifteen rabbits and unknown number of chickens. Why do you ask?

Just curious.

So, I won't fight with you either. You can get your panties in a wad over whatever you feel the urge.

Wuff.