Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court To Rule Quickly Whether Trump Can Be Prosecuted

[bigrebnc1775]

Just because there are a lot of you (Trump Supporters) does not mean they are sane.

WW

I laugh at you nutters who think they know better

 

[Mac1958]

You have not given any good reason to not vote Trump!

Well...

1. He is manifestly unfit for the job, if temperament, intelligence, knowledge, empathy, decency, curiosity, honesty, maturity and mental stability are priorities.
2. His election lies has caused this country great harm, and that in itself is disqualifying.
3. He is mentally ill, regularly displaying virtually all of the behaviors associated with Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
4. He represents the very worst of America with his childish behaviors, and he has emboldened millions of Americans to follow suit.
5. His instability is dangerous, both domestically and on the world stage. If he returns, our one-time allies will literally no longer trust us.
6. He has made many comments that make me wonder if he indeed wants to ignore the Constitution and remain in power, with the help of his behaviors.
7. His authoritarian instincts are abundantly clear, and he regularly praises people like Putin, Xi, Kim, Orban and others for "ruling with an iron fist". His words.
8. His second term would include loyalty tests, and he would surround himself with other authoritarians far more dangerous than even he is.
9. His astonishingly juvenile middle school bully behaviors have metastasized throughout the GQP, spreading to many other legislators.
10. His mental illness creates a fantasy world around him that defies reality, and that is another of his dangerous characteristics that have spread through the GQP.

I know that's all "fake news" to you. I know those aren't good reasons for you. But they're damn good reasons for me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ok. I'll bit. Other than politics, for what reason would this Gvt prosecutor abandon long established procedure?

He didn't "abandon long established procedure". The direct application to the SCOTUS has precedent and a lawyer indicated the SCOTUS has grant such cert 19 times in the last 4 years. (And not I don't have the specifics.)

However you can refer to United States v. Nixon (1974) where just such a pre-trial request was made to determine the whether the President could withhold the infamous Nixon Tapes.

WW

 

[Marener]

Ok. I'll bit. Other than politics, for what reason would this Gvt prosecutor abandon long established procedure?

The people have an interest in having this trial before the election.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I laugh at you nutters who think they know better

You are just butt hurt because we do.

WW

 

[Marener]

Yes i can. YOU were mistaken, not me. You forgot the dates that you literally posted minutes before. Youre fuckin stupid.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Godboy]

WTF are you talking about?

You. Pay attention, dumbshit.

 

[Marener]

You. Pay attention, dumbshit.

Im not even sure you’re intending to be responding to me or another poster. You’ve been repeatedly confused in this thread.

 

[Godboy]

Im not even sure

This ^ should be your default post in every single thread.

 

[BackAgain]

You are just butt hurt because we do.

WW

But, of course, you don’t.

 

[WEATHER53]

Asking people to be responsible and accountable for their actions is religious?

They use that as an excuse not to.

 

[Marener]

This ^ should be your default post in every single thread.

When it comes to figuring out what you confused morons are talking about, no one is ever quite sure.

 

[Rawley]

Just because there are a lot of you (Trump Supporters) does not mean they are sane.

WW

more sane than putting someone as corrupt and feeble as Biden in the WH.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They use that as an excuse not to.

This cult crybabyfest won't help Trump.

Trump knows he has no defense. So he wants to delay the trials in hopes of making them go away, if he can be elected.

 

[Care4all]

Get ready, when the SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor and demolishes the Dem's witch hunt Dems will again be demanding to RIG the SCOTUS with a bunch more liberal justices.

If their duty is to judge constitutionality, then trump will not win in the S.C.

NO man is above the law. You should know that....?

 

[WEATHER53]

If their duty is to judge constitutionality, then trump will not win in the S.C.

NO man is above the law. You should know that....?

And having doubts is not above the law

 

[hadit]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to take up and rule quickly on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results.

Smith made his request for the court to act with unusual speed to prevent any delays that could push back the trial of the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner, currently set to begin on March 4, until after next year’s presidential election.

A federal judge ruled the case could go forward, but Trump signaled he would ask the federal appeals court in Washington to reverse that outcome. Smith is attempting to bypass the appeals court, the usual next step in the process, and have the Supreme Court take up the matter directly.

More at the link below...

SPECIAL COUNSEL PUSHES SCOTUS FOR SPEEDY TRUMP RULING

Wise move by Special Counsel Jack Smith to get speedy SCOTUS ruling. What do you think>

I think that he's deliberately trying to bypass due process because he desperately wants to damage TRUMP!'s ability to run for office. IOW, it's a naked political power grab.

 

[Marener]

I think that he's deliberately trying to bypass due process because he desperately wants to damage TRUMP!'s ability to run for office. IOW, it's a naked political power grab.

What do you mean “bypass due process”? Why wouldn’t Trump want SCOTUS to make a decision here?

 

[hadit]

Go Jack!

Ignore that wall in front of you! Full speed ahead!

 

[Rawley]

He didn't "abandon long established procedure". The direct application to the SCOTUS has precedent and a lawyer indicated the SCOTUS has grant such cert 19 times in the last 4 years. (And not I don't have the specifics.)

The you really shouldn't cite it then. A prosecutor jumping from the trial court to the Supreme Court on an issue he won at the trial level is extremely rare, see Nixon..

However you can refer to United States v. Nixon (1974) where just such a pre-trial request was made to determine the whether the President could withhold the infamous Nixon Tapes.

WW

It was actually a joint appeal from the District Court Judge's order ordering the President to take an action. Not anything like the present case.