quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
The only party of constitution is Republican Party
Democrats constantly attack it

Even you aren't stupid enough to believe that.

I do believe that as I see it with my own eyes

I stand corrected, you are that stupid.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...6942d19513e375&ei=26

Trump defenders' latest argument has a scary double intent

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...ocid=socialshare&t=0

There’s a new argument making the rounds among former President Donald Trump’s defenders, and it doubles as a threat of political retribution. The upshot of this argument is that, if he’s not immunized from criminal prosecution in Washington (for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection) and Georgia (for his attempt to interfere in the state’s election results), then sham prosecutions await every president. And if courts allow Colorado to disqualify Trump from the presidential ballot, then disqualification will become the norm even for candidates whose behavior comes nowhere close to having participated in an insurrection or a rebellion covered by the 14th Amendment’s text. “If it can happen to Trump,” the argument goes, “it can happen to anyone.”

Even before Trump’s immunity claim was rejected by the Washington, D.C., circuit court on Tuesday, Republicans were already activating the cycle of political payback. Trump himself has threatened, if elected, to order that President Joe Biden be indicted. There is chatter about charging Barack Obama with murder because of a wartime military operation in Yemen. And Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has made not totally credible noises about removing Biden from Florida ballots. The race to the bottom is already underway — and, per the story coming from Trump’s defenders, courts that rule against him will only accelerate it.

We find these cycle-of-retribution arguments lacking, for reasons we explain in more detail below. But we were comforted to see that courts don’t seem to be buying them, either. For example, In Tuesday's blockbuster opinion denying Trump’s presidential immunity claim, the D.C. Circuit said: “The risk that former presidents will be unduly harassed by meritless federal prosecutions appears slight,” and the specter of “a torrent of politically motivated prosecutions finds little support in either history or the relatively narrow compass of the issues raised in this particular case.”

Slippery-slope arguments of the type that the D.C. Circuit rejected have three major problems. First, they necessarily conflate the legal response to Trump’s unique malfeasance with more conventional partisan disputes over, for instance, immigration or national security policy. Even if Trump avoids criminal punishment and/or appears on the ballot in all 50 states, no one with a handle on reality can plausibly claim that the cases against him are frivolous. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit panel, which includes stalwart conservative Karen Henderson, went out of its way to detail the extraordinary criminality alleged in the indictment. The legal consequences of Trump’s electoral interference — a profound and singular threat to American democracy — sit in stark contrast to the content-lite narratives offered in support of disqualifying or prosecuting Biden.

Second, the Trump-aligned argument ignores many mechanisms that constrain bad-faith prosecution and disqualification. For instance, former presidents don’t need “presidential immunity” to protect against bad-faith state prosecutions because “Supremacy Clause immunity” already prevents states from prosecuting federal officials — including ex-presidents — for official conduct. (The Georgia case is about Trump the candidate, not Trump the president.) Even if a state prosecutor and a state court ignored a former president’s immunity, they would still be able to enforce the immunity in the federal court to which any such case could be removed. Ditto efforts by federal prosecutors to bring frivolous charges against a former president, which would presumably fail a motion to dismiss. (Tuesday’s D.C. Circuit opinion lists several.) Without getting into the weeds of the procedural mechanisms that would slow any spiral of reciprocity, the upshot is that there can be a cascade of abusive prosecutions only if the U.S. Supreme Court signs off on them. And Congress can preclude retaliatory disqualification by simply passing legislation. If those institutions fail, then American democracy has far graver problems than vindictive federal prosecutors and abusive state election officials.

And that brings us to the third, most important point. If prosecutors and state election officials are inclined to indict or disqualify in bad faith, then courts’ having pumped the brakes on the Trump cases won’t stop them. The reason is simple enough: Immunizing Trump from criminal prosecution and preventing his ballot disqualification would hardly arrest our political polarization. And so long as demagogic political leaders describe opponents as “enemies” and demand extravagant legal responses to vague, unspecified charges of wrongdoing, it won’t matter how courts approach the Trump cases. There’s little room for nuance when the watchword is grievance.

It strikes us as particularly naive to suggest that the breadth of presidential immunity meaningfully influences the rate at which ex-presidents are subject to politicized indictments. If there are to be bad-faith prosecutions of former presidents, it won’t be because courts failed to declare sweeping presidential immunities. It will be because our politics have passed the point of no return. When faced with the specter of bad-faith prosecutions, the objective can’t be to disable presidential prosecution at all costs. It must instead be to ensure that courts have the power to spare ex-presidents from frivolous proceedings.

To indulge Trump’s legal arguments, the downside risk of political reprisal must outweigh costs on the other side of the ledger. But just consider the price of the categorical presidential immunity that Trump seeks. Last month, Trump’s lawyer told the D.C. Circuit that former presidents should be immune from criminal prosecution even in cases in which they ordered the assassinations of political opponents or accepted bribes in exchange for pardons. The reason this wouldn’t spell the rule of law’s end, Trump’s lawyer argued, is that such a president would still be politically accountable. Of course, our polarized politics have already failed to hold Trump accountable (for instance, with his acquittal by the Senate at his post-Jan. 6 impeachment trial). And if those same polarized politics are what produces that dystopian autocracy, it seems foolish to expect them to save us.

Like many Americans, the two of us don’t agree perfectly on how the courts should handle the immunity and disqualification cases. But we do agree with the D.C. Circuit that fear of bad-faith governance can’t dictate their response. We take seriously the threat that political polarization poses to the rule of law, and it’s well worth addressing. But asking the courts to bury their heads in the sand — rather than to do the job to which the Constitution commits them — will only make it worse.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
The only party of constitution is Republican Party
Democrats constantly attack it

Even you aren't stupid enough to believe that.

I do believe that as I see it with my own eyes

I stand corrected, you are that stupid.

Thank you for your compliment Oh the great vizier
I’d probably polish you boots…

ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

While I agree that Trump is a horrible candidate, what is Hawaii's democrat attempt to remove Trump from the ballot?

What is the individual state (democrat) attempts to utilize the 14th amendment in state proceedings rather than going through the Federal courts (as imperfect a solution as that may be?)

My view is that Trump should be beaten by a better candidate.

Unfortunately the Democrats are not stepping up, and the GOP has fallen into the trap of grudge politics.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

My view is that Trump should be beaten by a better candidate.

Unfortunately the Democrats are not stepping up, and the GOP has fallen into the trap of grudge politics.

While I appreciate your "view", and I would agree, except that there is a specific constitutional provision, sec3 of the 14th, which gives circumstances which disqualify Trump. It comes down to either ignore the constitutional disqualification, or not. One could say correctly that the "system" has chosen to not ignore the disqualification provision, but to test it in the proper way. So, it's now properly before SCOTUS for culmination of the test.

Your "retaliate in kind" comment reveals your "view". You have conflated the rule of law and elected officials' duty to serve with political corruption and malfeasance. Grudge politics such as farse investigations, farce impeachments, weaponization of DOJ has been the GOP thing for some time. It's like they are backed into a corner and have no path forward except corruption, led by Trump of course.

There is no rational argument that the rule of law should be hesitant in justice because a political party WILL abuse their powers, given enough of it. Fear of provoking corrupt intent seems contorted to me.

The article I posted above addresses all this better than I can. As long as the judiciary holds the line things will probably be ok, but the GOP will change that too if they can.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

While I agree that Trump is a horrible candidate, what is Hawaii's democrat attempt to remove Trump from the ballot?

What is the individual state (democrat) attempts to utilize the 14th amendment in state proceedings rather than going through the Federal courts (as imperfect a solution as that may be?)

My view is that Trump should be beaten by a better candidate.

Unfortunately the Democrats are not stepping up, and the GOP has fallen into the trap of grudge politics.

Because most Republicans, even now in post Trump, Christian Nationalism, and Jan 6 respect the rule of law and the Constitution.

Oh, and President Trump was beaten by a better candidate. That is how far down the MAGA, President Trump is.

The issue is not Trump. He is a mouth piece. The issue are all those who agree with him and defend him. They are okay with his calls to violence and suspension of the Constitution.

I have news for you. The 6th Circuit refusing to overturn a lower court decision that a student at a public school can use the bathroom if it’s preferred gender is not grounds for revolt. If you do not like it pass an amendment. The Constitution does not allow discrimination in a public space based on gender stereotypes. The Supreme Court, this majority refused to hear the appeal.

When the Supreme is ultimately forced to address the issue, I will say that is the law.

You know why in 2023 the S.Ct., could w legitimacy refuse to hear that case? The reason is in 2023 there was no disagreement on the issue among the Federal Circuits. That is the number one flag to get to the Supreme Court. The that being disagreement among the circuits.

It is the policies of what President Trump stands for that have been defeated up to this point. However, the Christian Nationalist, Maga types refuse to accept that and walk away from the electoral cliff.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

My view is that Trump should be beaten by a better candidate.

Unfortunately the Democrats are not stepping up, and the GOP has fallen into the trap of grudge politics.

Because most Republicans, even now in post Trump, Christian Nationalism, and Jan 6 respect the rule of law and the Constitution.

Oh, and President Trump was beaten by a better candidate.

The issue is not Trump. He is a mouth piece. The issue are all those who agree with him and defend him. They are okay with his calls to violence and suspension of the Constitution.

It is the policies of what President Trump stands for that have been defeated up to this point. However, the Christian Nationalist, Maga types refuse to accept that and walk away from the electoral cliff.

"Oh, and President Trump was beaten by a better candidate." That's funny

"Democrats are not stepping up". I'm not sure what you mean. Reciprocating?

"The GOP has fallen into the trap of grudge politics". That's std mode for the GOP. Hopefully it is a trap, and good campaign fodder for Dems.

"the Christian Nationalist, Maga types refuse to accept". Yesterday, I did some reading on the definitions of delusional. It's not that easy to define. Basically, it's a disconnect from reality, which is alt-reality. Delusional is "characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary". If one thinks about it too much the conclusion may be that the division in the country is really a contest between reality and alt-reality. The concerns that Doc Butler has about retribution/retaliation perverting the rule of law dwells within the delusional alt-reality of Christian Nationalists/MAGA. The main clue that what I'm saying is true is that the Christian Nationalists/MAGA types already, right now, firmly believe the rule of law has been corrupted or weaponized to persecute Trump, and by association their worldview. They don't see the rule of law serving them or the Founder's dream, unless they can control it. Thus, we have a BIG problem, because it is clear what will happen should they gain "control" of the rule of law. Trump has made that very clear, and it's very clear he will have plenty of support and loyalists.

"Because most Republicans, even now in post Trump, Christian Nationalism, and Jan 6 respect the rule of law and the Constitution." That's a comfort thought, and it seems to be true regarding the population of conservatives participating herein. Regarding the general population of those who ID as republican/conservative, I think it is probably not true.

Not stepping up means finding a good candidate.

Trump is so flawed that any decent option should collect 75% of the vote. Right now, Biden is a toss up.

We all know what both Biden and Trump are.

The GOP wants to have the electorate admit they made a mistake turning down Trump and electing Biden.

I can buy Biden as a mistake very easily

The problem for my fellow republicans is admitting that Trump was/is a mistake because Biden beat him…

Because conservatives by and large don’t hand out freebies, they need to be better to win. That sure isn’t DJT.

Look at some old Regan speeches, or JFK, or, heck, even Nixon. Compare that with Trump, guys.

Biden should be polling around 10% and doing an LBJ and jumping ship. He isn’t.

Why?

Ditto for you Biden supporters. Trump is horrid. Why is it even close?

These two are examples of why we got a representative republic. You could cast either of these two as King George in 1776. Clueless, bloviating, and heading for a cliff.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

.

I'm going to go with something really crazy and off the wall and say because the GOP should conduct themselves with honor, integrity civility.

If the GOP's code of conduct is revenge politics then to be straight with you, I quit.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

.

I'm going to go with something really crazy and off the wall and say because the GOP should conduct themselves with honor, integrity civility.

If the GOP's code of conduct is revenge politics then to be straight with you, I quit.

The key phrase is "retaliate in kind".

Under the rule of law, as a tool, there is no such thing as political retaliation, nor is there such a thing as tit for tat.

Theoretically, the rule of law is non-political, and it's supposed to be that way in reality.

"In kind" makes a presumption that's false fundamentally. Just because republicans feel/believe the rule of law is being weaponized by the opposition has little relationship to truth or fact or reality.

If it is or becomes a slippery slope, it's not because the rule of law provides for it. It could happen despite the rule of law, but that's a different problem, one primarily of deep corruption run amuck.

It's a delusional idea, fueled by nonsense and lies.

quote:

The issue is not Trump. He is a mouth piece

Oh dear God. Trump is a mouths piece????!

Slo Joe can't even remember his own name! Talk about a mouth piece!!! If someone cut the puppet strings on Biden he would be nothing bit a,mindless lump......hell he already is a mindless lump!

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Not stepping up means finding a good candidate.

Trump is so flawed that any decent option should collect 75% of the vote. Right now, Biden is a toss up.

We all know what both Biden and Trump are.

The GOP wants to have the electorate admit they made a mistake turning down Trump and electing Biden.

I can buy Biden as a mistake very easily

The problem for my fellow republicans is admitting that Trump was/is a mistake because Biden beat him…

Because conservatives by and large don’t hand out freebies, they need to be better to win. That sure isn’t DJT.

Look at some old Regan speeches, or JFK, or, heck, even Nixon. Compare that with Trump, guys.

Biden should be polling around 10% and doing an LBJ and jumping ship. He isn’t.

Why?

Ditto for you Biden supporters. Trump is horrid. Why is it even close?

These two are examples of why we got a representative republic. You could cast either of these two as King George in 1776. Clueless, bloviating, and heading for a cliff.

I'm not a trump fan.....but! Trump was the only candidate on the republican ticket that could have beaten hitlery.....

I am very glad the we had trump instead of hillary!!!

Trump is far from my first choice for president and I didn't nor will I now vote for him in the primary......but I will, with a clear conscience vote for him of he is the Republican candidate.

Democrats represent NOTHING that I want.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

.

I'm going to go with something really crazy and off the wall and say because the GOP should conduct themselves with honor, integrity civility.

If the GOP's code of conduct is revenge politics then to be straight with you, I quit.

Hold democrats to the same standard brother.

Dems did not try to overthrow the election.

See Al Gore’s example of proper conduct on a much closer contested election.

Hey Heymen which is it anyway? Your side throws around terms like overthrow, sedition, insurrection, riot. You people ought to stick to one theory and go with it. Honestly what I’m looking forward to is the wailing and gnashing of teeth from you and the rest of the Leftist numbies when SCOTUS sinks the cases to keep President Trump off the ballot. That will make my day.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

.

I'm going to go with something really crazy and off the wall and say because the GOP should conduct themselves with honor, integrity civility.

If the GOP's code of conduct is revenge politics then to be straight with you, I quit.

Hold democrats to the same standard brother.

How can I? I don't know them, don't vote for them and they represent none of my priorities or values.

Democrats have a standard?

I am against Democrats because they are anti gun and pro Hamas. I don't rub elbows with democrats because they are pro abortion and anti Israel. It was actually the Democrats that handled Afghanistan back to the Taliban. I have as much influence over democrats as you do Boss.

But the story goes that McConnell, Trump and DeSantis are on our team, represent our priorities and values. So, as I said above, if they don't, I quit. They get nothing from me.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Hey Heymen which is it anyway? Your side throws around terms like overthrow, sedition, insurrection, riot. You people ought to stick to one theory and go with it. Honestly what I’m looking forward to is the wailing and gnashing of teeth from you and the rest of the Leftist numbies when SCOTUS sinks the cases to keep President Trump off the ballot. That will make my day.

Well, those words when applied to violence to overthrow an election can be read as synonymous.

As usual you show your hatred. When you cannot argue the law someone a feminine, insult. You defeat yourself.

Tell us again how gay people are disgusting perverts.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

.

I'm going to go with something really crazy and off the wall and say because the GOP should conduct themselves with honor, integrity civility.

If the GOP's code of conduct is revenge politics then to be straight with you, I quit.

Hold democrats to the same standard brother.

How can I? I don't know them, don't vote for them and they represent none of my priorities or values.

Democrats have a standard?

I am against Democrats because they are anti gun and pro Hamas. I don't rub elbows with democrats because they are pro abortion and anti Israel. It was actually the Democrats that handled Afghanistan back to the Taliban. I have as much influence over democrats as you do Boss.

But the story goes that McConnell, Trump and DeSantis are on our team, represent our priorities and values. So, as I said above, if they don't, I quit. They get nothing from me.

I do not know a single democrat who is "pro Hamas". I'm sure you can find someone, but stop painting with a broom. There are also republicans who are VERY pro Putin.

This a standard provided by a Democrat. It is Al Gore’s concession speech after losing at the Supreme Court in a much tighter contested election.

https://www.americanrhetoric.c...oncessionspeech.html

Compare that to President Trump whose claims were so roundly rejected he could not even get to the Supreme Court. Bluefish has summoned President Trump’s position for us bring blood, violence, disregard for constitutional principles, and revenge. That is the standard of the leader of the national GOP being President Trump. The same guy who led an alt right revolt against federal legislation at the border.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Hey Heymen which is it anyway? Your side throws around terms like overthrow, sedition, insurrection, riot. You people ought to stick to one theory and go with it. Honestly what I’m looking forward to is the wailing and gnashing of teeth from you and the rest of the Leftist numbies when SCOTUS sinks the cases to keep President Trump off the ballot. That will make my day.

Somehow I got the impression you are a lawyer. I must have been mistaken.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
But the story goes that McConnell, Trump and DeSantis are on our team, represent our priorities and values. So, as I said above, if they don't, I quit. They get nothing from me.

There is a lot which is very disturbing about that - "team", "priorities and values", etc., given the turn of many, many events and factors.

Here's just one example:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...1edb4e0826d7b&ei=206

Priest Issues 'Red Flag' Warning About Mike Johnson Remarks
Story by Rachel Dobkin • 14h

(excerpt)

In early December 2023, Johnson gave a keynote speech at the NACL's annual meeting and awards gala. The NACL has been labeled as a far-right Christian nationalist group. During his speech, Johnson compared his journey to the speakership to that of Moses parting the Red Sea, a famous biblical story.

"The Lord told me very clearly to prepare, be ready. Be ready for what? Ok, I don't know. We're coming to a Red Sea moment. What does that mean, Lord?" Johnson said. "And then when the Speaker's race happened and Kevin McCarthy, who is a dear friend of mine was deposed, vacated from the chair. Oh wow, well this is what the Lord may have been preparing us for."

"And so, I started praying more about that and the Lord began to wake me up through this three-week process ... now at the time, I assumed the Lord is going to choose a new Moses and, Oh, thank you, Lord you're gonna allow me to be Aaron to Moses."

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

I wonder what MAGA Mike thought about God's will regarding the two failed votes on bills under his watch, which were supposedly conservative "priorities and values"?

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

.

I'm going to go with something really crazy and off the wall and say because the GOP should conduct themselves with honor, integrity civility.

If the GOP's code of conduct is revenge politics then to be straight with you, I quit.

Hold democrats to the same standard brother.

How can I? I don't know them, don't vote for them and they represent none of my priorities or values.

Democrats have a standard?

I am against Democrats because they are anti gun and pro Hamas. I don't rub elbows with democrats because they are pro abortion and anti Israel. It was actually the Democrats that handled Afghanistan back to the Taliban. I have as much influence over democrats as you do Boss.

But the story goes that McConnell, Trump and DeSantis are on our team, represent our priorities and values. So, as I said above, if they don't, I quit. They get nothing from me.

I do not know a single democrat who is "pro Hamas". I'm sure you can find someone, but stop painting with a broom. There are also republicans who are VERY pro Putin.

Well gee, there's Rashida Tlab and every single American that voted for her.
Come on Man.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

.

I'm going to go with something really crazy and off the wall and say because the GOP should conduct themselves with honor, integrity civility.

If the GOP's code of conduct is revenge politics then to be straight with you, I quit.

When you get jumped by a thug do you fight by marquis of Queensbury rules????

I prefer the high road myself.....but......I ain't gonna get mugged by a thug without doing whats,necessary....

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

.

I'm going to go with something really crazy and off the wall and say because the GOP should conduct themselves with honor, integrity civility.

If the GOP's code of conduct is revenge politics then to be straight with you, I quit.

When you get jumped by a thug do you fight by marquis of Queensbury rules????

I prefer the high road myself.....but......I ain't gonna get mugged by a thug without doing whats,necessary....

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ME, why wouldn't the republicans retaliate in kind to the democrats?

.

I'm going to go with something really crazy and off the wall and say because the GOP should conduct themselves with honor, integrity civility.

If the GOP's code of conduct is revenge politics then to be straight with you, I quit.

When you get jumped by a thug do you fight by marquis of Queensbury rules????

I prefer the high road myself.....but......I ain't gonna get mugged by a thug without doing whats,necessary....

Uh uh.
We're not talking about fighting or self defense, the very distinct suggestion of revenge was made and the answer should be no.

https://youtu.be/PRwUUlpQHeg?si=pte22jiB8bHznftZ

Ty Cobb reacts to Trump’s filing to the Supreme Court

Ex-Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb shares his reaction to Donald Trump's last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court for immunity.

https://youtu.be/DICVcH4xkzM?si=WNdphp7Q7j-awCi5

Supreme Court Gets POWERFUL ROADMAP to Reject Trump IMMUNITY

Would Trump have used the military to prevent Biden electors from voting and certifying the election? This terrifying real possibility is at the heart of a new brief filed by REPUBLICANS AND FEDERALISTS with the Supreme Court to encourage it to REJECT TRUMP’S request for a further stay of his DC criminal trial. Michael Popok of Legal AF reporting from the road, explains why if this brief doesn’t convince the Court to reject the stay and let the trial happen before Election Day, nothing will.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...9b82dcc4ccaf4d&ei=17

Trump declines to seek Supreme Court reversal of immunity ruling
Story by Joseph Ellis • 9h

Probably this is the reason Trump team declined:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b1aae9e853f2c3&ei=30

Jack Smith has a speedy backup plan on Trump immunity
Story by Andrew Rodriguez • 18h

Special counsel Jack Smith filed opposition to keeping federal election interference case on hold while Trump appeals.

Smith’s team argued that delay “threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power.”

Smith suggests Supreme Court reject Trump’s stay application or expedite it as a petition for review.

https://youtu.be/U1A7bWeI-4o?si=shVPCuMl9fNJhe50

Feb 20, 2024
The Supreme Court released their order list for this week today with one all-important item missing: Trump's immunity case. Harry breaks down the significance, or lack thereof, of the absence