Supreme Court thumbing the scale for Trump.

[AntonToo]

yes it does,,

great, explain WHY

 

[Seymour Flops]

Actually they refused when they were asked by Jack Smith to settle presidential immunity claims back in Dec, 135 days ago.

They did not refuse Trump his day in court nor did they refuse to prosecutor their day in court. They just did not see the emergency that Jack Smith was claiming that required them to let him skip the appeals court.

The Democrats not wanting to lose an election, it’s not an emergency.

They now sudenly raise their hand - STOP EVERYTHING! Stop cases against Trump. We promise to have a hearing on this...in 2 months, followed by who-knows how long to deliver an actual ruling.

Yes, Supreme Court cases take time. They are deliberative.

Why is this case special? Can you explain without mentioning the upcoming election?

That sounds reasonable, good faith behavior by Supreme Court to you?

Yes, it sounds like they’re treating it like any other criminal case. Yes, the claim of presidential immunity is unique. But I would guess that virtually every immunity case the Supreme Court hears is a unique claim. If it was establish law, the Supreme Court would not need to hear it.

 

[progressive hunter]

great, explain WHY

theres no rule or law that says they cant change their minds would be the biggest reason

another would be, new developments gave the reason to now hear it,,,,,

 

[AntonToo]

They did not refuse Trump his day in court nor did they refuse to prosecutor their day in court. They just did not see the emergency that Jack Smith was claiming that required them to let him skip the appeals court.

What requires them to hold up Trump's cases?

They have what is described by legal experts as iron-clad lower court descision. There is exactly no one on left or right that thinks Trump is, or ought ot be, immune. They want to hash out some technicalities? They can do all that while allowing cases to proceed.

You seriously do not a see a pattern of deliberate stalling here? A very damaging look for Supreme Court?

 

[AntonToo]

theres no rule or law

Polly wants a cracker?

 

[Seymour Flops]

What requires them to hold up Trump's cases?

What do you mean “hold up” his cases?

They have what is described by legal experts as iron-clad lower court descision. There is exactly no one that thinks Trump is, or ought ot be, immune. They want to hash out some technicalities? They can do all that while allowing cases to proceed.

I don’t know of anyone that thinks that Donald Trump personally should be 100% immune from everything. That’s a red herring. The question is should a former president be immune for actions he took as president? That sounds like a very important case on which to Rule.

I could care less what those CNN or MSNBC “legal experts“ say. Those “news outlets“ chose those “legal experts“ strictly on the basis of their willingness to say that Trump has no case. So it is not that all legal experts are saying it. Is that all of the legal experts that CNN allows you to see are saying it.

Unless your argument is that it would be fine for a partisan Republican district attorney to prosecute Barack Obama for homicide for his actions in killing an underage American citizen with a drone strike.

You seriously do not a see a pattern of deliberate stalling here? A very damaging look for Supreme Court?

My question is, what is your hurry? Are you admitting that your hurry is because of the election?

I suppose anytime someone brings the case or makes an appeal or makes some motion, the other side could accuse them of “stalling.“ That doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t get their day in court. That doesn’t mean that criminal defendants shouldn’t try every defense.

If this was some illegal alien accused of multiple rapes and murders who appealed to the courts over some jurisdictionsl question, like a state, prosecuting them for a crime committed on federal land, you would be all for them getting their day in court for that appeal.

And you’d be right. A criminal defendant is entitled to use whatever defense he or more to the point his attorney can come up with. Denying that to anyone is a recipe for the executive branch being judge jury and executioner.

I know you’d like that in the case of Trump but can’t you see how that would set a bad president.

 

[bendog]

What do you mean “hold up” his cases?

I don’t know of anyone that thinks that Donald Trump personally should be 100% immune from everything. That’s a red herring. The question is should a former president be immune for actions he took as president? That sounds like a very important case on which to Rule.

I could care less what those CNN or MSNBC “legal experts“ say. Those “news outlets“ chose those “legal experts“ strictly on the basis of their willingness to say that Trump has no case. So it is not that all legal experts are saying it. Is that all of the legal experts that CNN allows you to see are saying it.

Unless your argument is that it would be fine for a partisan Republican district attorney to prosecute Barack Obama for homicide for his actions in killing an underage American citizen with a drone strike.

My question is, what is your hurry? Are you admitting that your hurry is because of the election?

I suppose anytime someone brings the case or makes an appeal or makes some motion, the other side could accuse them of “stalling.“ That doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t get their day in court. That doesn’t mean that criminal defendants shouldn’t try every defense.

If this was some illegal alien accused of multiple rapes and murders who appealed to the courts over some jurisdictionsl question, like a state, prosecuting them for a crime committed on federal land, you would be all for them getting their day in court for that appeal.

And you’d be right. A criminal roof, and Aunt is entitled to use whatever defense he or more to the point his attorney can come up with. Denying that to anyone is a recipe for the executive branch being judged jury and executioner.

I know you’d like that in the case of Trump but can’t you see how that would set a bad president.

I think the problem people have is that post-Nixon, we assumed that if what a president did while in office constituted all elements of a felony, then he/she could be tried and convicted in court. The SC may take this opportunity to say a president cannot be criminally tried unless he is first convicted in the senate after being impeached by the house. And would mean the president is above the same law that governs u and me.

Of course, I can see Alabama charging a dem with .... anything and everything, just cause they can

 

[Nostra]

What is your take on SC's behavior here?

Post something, ANYTHING, constructive.

Nothing out of the ordinary, Simp.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think the problem people have is that post-Nixon, we assumed that if what a president did while in office constituted all elements of a felony, then he/she could be tried and convicted in court. The SC may take this opportunity to say a president cannot be criminally tried unless he is first convicted in the senate after being impeached by the house. And would mean the president is above the same law that governs u and me.

Well no.

Not if you believe in the idea that a USSC decision becomes “the law of the land.”

Of course, I can see Alabama charging a dem with .... anything and everything, just cause they can

Yep.

Not a way to run a democratic republic.

 

[Frankenstein]

Well no.

Not if you believe in the idea that a USSC decision becomes “the law of the land.”

Yep.

Not a way to run a democratic republic.

It's all the Democrat party has done for near 8 years now with Trump

 

[Care4all]

What do you mean “hold up” his cases?

I don’t know of anyone that thinks that Donald Trump personally should be 100% immune from everything. That’s a red herring. The question is should a former president be immune for actions he took as president? That sounds like a very important case on which to Rule.

I could care less what those CNN or MSNBC “legal experts“ say. Those “news outlets“ chose those “legal experts“ strictly on the basis of their willingness to say that Trump has no case. So it is not that all legal experts are saying it. Is that all of the legal experts that CNN allows you to see are saying it.

Unless your argument is that it would be fine for a partisan Republican district attorney to prosecute Barack Obama for homicide for his actions in killing an underage American citizen with a drone strike.

My question is, what is your hurry? Are you admitting that your hurry is because of the election?

I suppose anytime someone brings the case or makes an appeal or makes some motion, the other side could accuse them of “stalling.“ That doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t get their day in court. That doesn’t mean that criminal defendants shouldn’t try every defense.

If this was some illegal alien accused of multiple rapes and murders who appealed to the courts over some jurisdictionsl question, like a state, prosecuting them for a crime committed on federal land, you would be all for them getting their day in court for that appeal.

And you’d be right. A criminal defendant is entitled to use whatever defense he or more to the point his attorney can come up with. Denying that to anyone is a recipe for the executive branch being judge jury and executioner.

I know you’d like that in the case of Trump but can’t you see how that would set a bad president.

Justice delayed,

Is justice denied!

Yes, absolutely important to try the J6 election subversion case BEFORE the election voting starts....because either guilty or not guilty, the Citizens have great interest to know before they cast their ballots.

 

[AntonToo]

My question is, what is your hurry? Are you admitting that your hurry is because of the election?

The hurry is in extrodinary situation where we have DOJ guidelines that a sitting president can't be prosecuted and a defendant that may become a president before his ongoing criminal cases are resolved.

There is OBVIOSLY a limited time frame in play which justifies high priority. How can you possibly say there isn't?

 

[bendog]

Well no.

Not if you believe in the idea that a USSC decision becomes “the law of the land.”

Yep.

Not a way to run a democratic republic.

I have to leave, but are you saying the SC may not hold a potus must first be impeached and convicted by the senate before being criminally tried, at least in fed court while still potus? (note, he/she would never be tried while in office because they run the DOJ, and perhaps they can self-pardon - and that's not before the SC ...yet)

I bookmarked the page, and ..... shall return. lol

 

[Nostra]

Justice delayed,

Is justice denied!

Yes, absolutely important to try the J6 election subversion case BEFORE the election voting starts....because either guilty or not guilty, the Citizens have great interest to know before they cast their ballots.

The right to a speedy trial is for the defendant, not frothing at the mouth Dimwingers hoping to lock up Tater’s rival before the election.

 

[Nostra]

The hurry is in extrodinary situation where we have DOJ guidelines that a sitting president can't be prosecuted and a defendant that may become a president before his ongoing criminal cases are resolved.

There is OBVIOSLY a limited time frame in play which justifies high priority. How can you possibly say there isn't?

Nope. See post above, Simp.

You don’t count.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Justice delayed,

Is justice denied!

Yes, absolutely important to try the J6 election subversion case BEFORE the election voting starts....because either guilty or not guilty, the Citizens have great interest to know before they cast their ballots.

Really?

If he’s found not guilty, you’ll say “ well, I’ll be darned! I really thought he was guilty, but if the jury said not guilty, then he’s not guilty.”

Of course you won’t say that. And if he’s found guilty that people that believe he’s not guilty won’t agree with the verdict either.

These indictments are a Hail Mary pass by losing party. Trump will be the next president, the quicker you make up your mind, that the easier the transition will be for you.

 

[AntonToo]

So it took the government 40 years without ANY complaints or victims to pursue this?

Holy shit you are stupid. Obviously government couldn't prosecute Trump for things he didn't do yet.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I have to leave, but are you saying the SC may not hold a potus must first be impeached and convicted by the senate before being criminally tried, at least in fed court while still potus? (note, he/she would never be tried while in office because they run the DOJ, and perhaps they can self-pardon - and that's not before the SC ...yet)

I bookmarked the page, and ..... shall return. lol

No, I never said that at all. Of course it’s possible the Supreme Court could rule that way. It makes sense if you read the constitution. Of course it would also make sense to say that he can be tried without an impeachment and removal.

They could say you cannot be tried without an impeachment while in office but that you could be tried without an impeachment after office.

A sitting president could be indicted while in office, by some out of control, Horndog of a state or local prosecutor. You know, like Flatback Fani.

Or, they could be indicted by their “own” department of Justice, if it was like Trump‘s Department of Justice, which was incredibly partisan toward the deep state and against Trump.

The constitution is ambiguous on that point, so the Supreme Court will have to decide. That’s like, you know, their job?

 

[shockedcanadian]

Holy shit you are stupid. Obviously government couldn't prosecute Trump for things he didn't do yet.

Yep, you haven't read a history book.

If Trump had not run for president none of these investigations would have occurred. Not one.

 

[AntonToo]

Really?

If he’s found not guilty, you’ll say “ well, I’ll be darned! I really thought he was guilty, but if the jury said not guilty, then he’s not guilty.”

Of course you won’t say that.

I've said that when Mueller couldn't establish Trump's criminal conspiracy with Russians.

You are just shooting from the hip, probably because you don't have a better arugment left.