Jack Smith is a very good lawyer. This is going to be interesting.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11...ack-smith/index.html

put me on the side on no immunity

The only way they can find for Trump is to cite the Bush v Gore precedent that there's a separate Law for Republicans.

Will the three he appointed recuse?

Not holding my breath...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...wDS?ocid=socialshare

Weissman: ‘No downside for Jack Smith’ - DOJ asks Supreme Court to determine Trump immunity question

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
put me on the side on no immunity

Same, but I have no clue legally. Unlike so many around here, I do not claim constitutional clairvoyance. And, this is uncharted territory.

Thomas and three trump appointees.

Chief Justice Roberts will decide, 5-4.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...7e00fa3d9394a6&ei=48

Federal prosecutors urge judge to keep March 4 trial date in Trump election subversion case
Story by Rebecca Falconer • 20h

Prosecutors urged a judge in former President Trump's 2020 election interference federal case on Sunday to deny his request to pause proceedings while he appeals her ruling rejecting that he has presidential immunity.

Why it matters: Appeal proceedings could delay Trump's trial, which is due to begin the day before Super Tuesday, and its outcome could impact this and the other three criminal cases that the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner faces.

Driving the news: "During the pendency of the appeal, any number of matters could arise in this case that are not involved in the appeal; the Court should not enter an order preventing it from handling them," wrote the prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith's team in the court filing seeking to keep the trial start date on March 4.

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

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...qWI?ocid=socialshare

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

https://youtu.be/trOOjvlgtV4?si=0UyToln6xRB6oBBC

1 hour ago

Supreme Court opts to expedite its consideration of special counsel's question about Trump case

'Al Capone of our political system': Scaramucci says 'brilliant move by Jack' has Trump 'very, very worried'
Story by Maya Boddie • 7h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...05824fbaa4c848&ei=19

Trial for Smith's 2020 election interference criminal case against the ex-president is set for March 4.

"I'm curious what you think is, kind of, going through Donald Trump's head right now," Collins said to Scaramucci. "As Jack Smith is here surprising everyone by going past the appeals court, going straight to the Supreme Court, and basically trying to cut off Trump's known strategy of delaying his legal troubles."

Scaramucci replied, "I think it's a brilliant move by Jack. But if you really want to get inside the president's mind, he's very, very worried. You've got 91 counts, four big indictments. It feels like he is the Al Capone of our current political system, meaning people think he's untouchable, just like they did with Al Capone or somebody like John Gotti, but they actually are not untouchable. So, he's very, very worried. I do know that he thinks because he appointed six of those — excuse me, three of those justices, but he has six that are conservatives, I do think that he thinks he's got a good shot there. He thinks that that court is politicized and will tip to his favor. And obviously Jack Smith doesn't think that. I certainly don't think that. And I think it's a great strategy, Kaitlan. We'll have to see what happens, but I think the president is very worried."

https://youtu.be/5Nvos5WV06w?si=33_oP_GSoFgxqCZc

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Thomas and three trump appointees.

Chief Justice Roberts will decide, 5-4.

Alito?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Thomas and three trump appointees.

Chief Justice Roberts will decide, 5-4.

Alito?

Good point.

Last paragraph in a dissent he wrote yesterday bodes well for trump in the gag order case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...3pdf/23-411_d1oe.pdf

Throughout his life Trump has acted as though he thinks he is above the law.

I wish there was a good way to estimate how much he's paid (and cheated) attorneys over the years, and caused others to pay attorneys. It would probably be enough to run small country. (or ruin a large one)

https://youtu.be/QazYZPC1Mj0?si=EJIPV-B6qqgpZAJV

Carl Bernstein: Supreme Court's ruling in Trump case could set precedent for future presidents

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...80172553c9ea89&ei=15

'Fundamentally unfair': Trump's legal team rages in new filing seeking to stay D.C. trial
Story by Matthew Chapman • 1h

Just about every president acts at times like he is above the law…in the eye of opposition
Not that you ever admit it EM

quote:

Just about every president acts at times like he is above the law…in the eye of opposition

When Nixon went above the law there were many republicans who would have voted to impeach him. The 2/3 votes were there. That's why he resigned.

Ford pardoned him to thwart the imminent criminal case in court, and probably the civil cases.

SCOTUS did a ruling that POTUS is not above the law. That case is the precedent that the current SCOTUS will overturn or uphold.

Note: the decision was unanimous court

https://constitutioncenter.org...nited-states-v-nixon

The Supreme Court decision that ended Nixon’s presidency
July 24, 2023 | by NCC Staff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...l%20district%20court.

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

Yet, even Nixon had many loyal supporters, either in denial or just didn't care that he was a criminal, or approved it.

Things are somewhat different with Trump. He's still a criminal (IMO verdict pending) but he has many more supporters and the 2/3 vote is a farce.

If there is one dissent on SCOTUS to the majority decision that POTUS is NOT immune, IMO it will be a loss for the Nation. IOW, the decision should be unanimous in favor of the prosecution, to set things right.

I think it's ironic that Clarence is the MAN Trumpsters can count on.

Solid observation ME.

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
Just about every president acts at times like he is above the law…in the eye of opposition
Not that you ever admit it EM

Yeah, but there's only been one president who tried to steal an election through fraud and lies. And, that would be your boy.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Just about every president acts at times like he is above the law…in the eye of opposition

When Nixon went above the law there were many republicans who would have voted to impeach him. The 2/3 votes were there. That's why he resigned.

Ford pardoned him to thwart the imminent criminal case in court, and probably the civil cases.

SCOTUS did a ruling that POTUS is not above the law. That case is the precedent that the current SCOTUS will overturn or uphold.

Note: the decision was unanimous court

https://constitutioncenter.org...nited-states-v-nixon

The Supreme Court decision that ended Nixon’s presidency
July 24, 2023 | by NCC Staff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...l%20district%20court.

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

Yet, even Nixon had many loyal supporters, either in denial or just didn't care that he was a criminal, or approved it.

Things are somewhat different with Trump. He's still a criminal (IMO verdict pending) but he has many more supporters and the 2/3 vote is a farce.

If there is one dissent on SCOTUS to the majority decision that POTUS is NOT immune, IMO it will be a loss for the Nation. IOW, the decision should be unanimous in favor of the prosecution, to set things right.

I think it's ironic that Clarence is the MAN Trumpsters can count on.

If Thomas had any ethics he would recuse himself, but he proved he didn't when he ruled on Bush v Gore while his wife was vetting political appointees for the Bush "administration". Not to mention years of accepting millions of dollars worth of perqs from people/groups with interests before the Court without divulging them.

Furthermore, no Judge, at any level, should sit in judgement of the one who gave them the job.

And Sotomayor and Kagan should have recused on some of the Obama decisions…

I’m not disagreeing that Thomas should recuse himself on some, but that die has been cast long ago by the progressives not recusing themselves on a number of cases. The idea that the justice alone knows if he’s inappropriately involved is a dumb one.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
And Sotomayor and Kagan should have recused on some of the Obama decisions…

I’m not disagreeing that Thomas should recuse himself on some, but that die has been cast long ago by the progressives not recusing themselves on a number of cases. The idea that the justice alone knows if he’s inappropriately involved is a dumb one.

What decisions involving Obama personally did those Justices rule on?

Obamacare that I recall.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Obamacare that I recall.

"ObamaCare" was a name attached to a Law, the Affordable Care Act, not an issue that involved Obama personally.

And Kagan was involved in it as one of the AG’s.

Then she sat on the decision that called it a tax, not a law.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
And Kagan was involved in it as one of the AG’s.

Then she sat on the decision that called it a tax, not a law.

So, unable to point to a single instance involving Obama himself, because he wasn't in the habit of doing criminal shit that wound up before the Supreme Court, you want to pivot to an entirely unrelated issue in which her recusal would not have affected the outcome.

You really are a Republican.

You are not very with it, are you.

The whole discussion was SCOTUS justices and recusal.

Kagan was heavily involved in writing and lobbying for the bill under Obama.

She should have recused herself from hearing on it.

She didn’t.

The whole business has nothing to do with Obama except as it relates to he was an easy offhand way to place the incident in time.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You are not very with it, are you.

The whole discussion was SCOTUS justices and recusal.

Kagan was heavily involved in writing and lobbying for the bill under Obama.

She should have recused herself from hearing on it.

She didn’t.

The whole business has nothing to do with Obama except as it relates to he was an easy offhand way to place the incident in time.

You pivoted from a discussion of Justices appointed by the Party involved or a close family member (wife) closely tied to the Party involved to unrelated recusal decisions from the past.

No Judge or Justice should ever sit on a case involving the one who appointed them, nor should they sit on a case involving anyone or anything their spouse has been closely involved with.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You are not very with it, are you.

The whole discussion was SCOTUS justices and recusal.

Kagan was heavily involved in writing and lobbying for the bill under Obama.

She should have recused herself from hearing on it.

She didn’t.

The whole business has nothing to do with Obama except as it relates to he was an easy offhand way to place the incident in time.

And, to my understanding, she wasn't "heavily involved in writing and lobbying" for Obabacare, she was peripherally involved in determining how to defend it, if necessary, as Solicitor General, which was her job.

Yes, it was her job.

Her biased job.

Thus she should have recused herself.

The whole point being that SCOTUS justices have been allowed to self determine their impartiality and haven’t been doing that great a job of it for a long time.

Classically the side on a minority opinion has been carping about it for decades.

I’m all for doing something about it.

What?

The justices collectively don’t want someone over them deciding who is impartial or not.

So do you have a good idea how?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Yes, it was her job.

Her biased job.

Thus she should have recused herself.

The whole point being that SCOTUS justices have been allowed to self determine their impartiality and haven’t been doing that great a job of it for a long time.

Classically the side on a minority opinion has been carping about it for decades.

I’m all for doing something about it.

What?

The justices collectively don’t want someone over them deciding who is impartial or not.

So do you have a good idea how?

Of course I do. Amend the Statute that created the Judicial Conference to impose a binding Code of Ethics applicable to the Supreme Court.

We should also seriously consider this.

There are many codes of physical conduct that can be used as model legislation.

The Senate through impeachment power already has the power of ethical oversight of the High Court.

I honestly do not think the Supreme Court would permit Congress to pass an ethics code upon the High Court. That has been across every state that tried it held to be a violation of separation of powers. What those reform elements did do was force state courts to self- regulate and adopt ethics codes for lawyers and all judges or risk legitimacy.

Our system is similar to the economic market in one way. The judicial, political system breathes upon legitimacy. The economic market breathes on confidence.

If we lose legitimacy of our political institutions, our Constitutional Republic stops. That is why what President Trump and his minions have tried to do, and some respects succeeded is so horrid.

https://www.cbsnews.com/colora.../?intcid=CNR-01-0623


(see video in the link)

POLITICS
Judge in Trump's 2020 election case pauses proceedings amid dispute over immunity

Washington — The federal judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's case involving the 2020 election has agreed to temporarily pause proceedings while Trump appeals a decision over whether he is entitled to broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

In a brief order Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan largely granted Trump's request to halt the proceedings while he pursues his appeal. Chutkan said Trump's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit means she must automatically stay further proceedings that would move the case toward trial.

Later Wednesday evening, the D.C. Circuit said in an unsigned order it would fast-track its review of the district court's decision and set a schedule for Trump and special counsel Jack Smith to file briefs in the coming weeks. Arguments, which have yet to be scheduled, will be heard by Judges Karen Henderson, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan.

In her decision, Chutkan wrote that Trump's move gives the higher court jurisdiction over the case. She noted that if the case is returned to her she will consider "whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4." The case would return to her if Trump's immunity claim is ultimately rejected, allowing the prosecution to move forward.

Trump was charged with four counts in August, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, with prosecutors alleging he orchestrated a scheme to resist the peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election. He pleaded not guilty to those charges and has denied wrongdoing.

Last month, Trump asked Chutkan to dismiss the charges, arguing he was shielded from federal prosecution because the alleged conduct occurred while he was president and involved acts within the "outer perimeter" of his official duties. The judge denied his assertion of presidential immunity.

While Trump asked the D.C. Circuit to review Chutkan's decision, Smith on Monday requested the Supreme Court take up the case, a move that would bypass the appeals court altogether. The high court agreed to fast-track its consideration of whether to hear the dispute, and gave Trump until Dec. 20 to file its response to Smith's request.

In her order Wednesday, Chutkan said she will still enforce existing measures she imposed to "safeguard the integrity" of the proceedings, like a gag order limiting what Trump can say publicly about the case and a protective order governing the use of "sensitive" evidence.

"Maintaining those measures does not advance the case towards trial or impose burdens of litigation on Defendant beyond those he already carries," she wrote. "And if a criminal defendant could bypass those critical safeguards merely by asserting immunity and then appealing its denial, then during the appeal's pendency, the defendant could irreparably harm any future proceedings and their participants."

Chutkan noted, though, that she would be bound by any decision from a higher court regarding those measures.

The special counsel's office declined to comment on the order.

The D.C. Circuit last week largely upheld Chutkan's gag order, to the extent that it prohibits Trump from making public statements about potential witnesses in the case, lawyers, members of court staff and lawyers' staff, and their family members. The former president can, however, criticize Smith, the Justice Department and Biden administration, and continue to assert his innocence, as well as claim that his prosecution is politically motivated.

Trump has said he will appeal the ruling from the three-judge panel, but has not formally done so yet.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...e2fb19125f9037&ei=93

In New York Supreme Court, the former president’s legal and media strategies were essentially one — now get ready for more in 2024

For the last two-plus months, Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial in New York has showcased how the former president’s legal and media strategies are essentially interlocked, from navigating the first of his gag orders to spinning what happened inside the courtroom at makeshift press conferences.

Get ready in 2024 for a supersized version of the same, albeit with the added wrinkles that come because Trump will be a criminal defendant rather than a civil one.

Unlike criminal trials where the accused must be in attendance, each of Trump’s appearances at the New York Supreme Court building was optional because it was a civil case, with the possible exception of his subpoenaed testimony. And yet the former president showed up at 60 Centre Street time and again. Trump, the Republican frontrunner running to win his old White House job back next November, courted the press in the hallways, insulted the judge from the witness stand, and generally used each appearance as campaign and fundraising opportunities.

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

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...e2fb19125f9037&ei=31

‘Dictator' Trump Plans to Deploy Massive Number of Troops on U.S. Soil
Story by Adam Rawnsley • 1d

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

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...e2fb19125f9037&ei=11

Trump's 'Presidential Immunity' Argument Denied by Appeals Court
Story by GistFest • 8h

A federal appeals court has ruled that former President Donald Trump gave up his right to argue that presidential immunity protects him. This pertains to statements he made in 2019 when he denied raping advice columnist E. Jean Carroll.

Per Fox News:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...atf?ocid=socialshare

David Schoen: DOJ is stripping Trump of his rights

Former Trump impeachment lawyer David Schoen joins 'Life, Liberty & Levin' to discuss former President Trump's legal cases.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...wDS?ocid=socialshare

MSNBC

Weissman: ‘No downside for Jack Smith’ - DOJ asks Supreme Court to determine Trump immunity question

Andrew Weissman, former top prosecutor at the Department of Justice, Betsy Woodruff Swan, Politico National Correspondent and Lisa Rubin, MSNBC Legal Analyst join Ali Velshi in for Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House to discuss special counsel Jack Smith taking the unusual step of asking the Supreme Court to rule on the question involving whether Donald Trump is protected by presidential immunity for crimes he allegedly committed during his presidency in the election interference case.