The lawfare against Trump takes a new twist

[Procrustes Stretched]

"On Monday evening, just hours after Mr. Smith filed papers in the Supreme Court, the justices granted his initial request: to put their consideration of whether to hear the case on a fast track. The court ordered Mr. Trump’s lawyers to file their response to the petition seeking review on an abbreviated schedule, by Dec. 20."

Now let us see if Trump's team of lawyers uses the argument made here over and over again by BackAgain: "asking the Supreme Court for what amounts to an advisory opinion." That would get it thrown out. But why is the Court agreeing to fast track something they don't issue opinions on? Hmm...

Oh wait!

advisory opinion​

Primary tabs​

An advisory opinion is a court's nonbinding interpretation of law. It states the opinion of a court upon a legal question submitted by a legislature, government official, or another court. Parties seeking advisory opinions tend to do so to better understand their odds of winning a potential lawsuit before risking the expensive process of litigation.

Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions because of the Constitution's case-or-controversy requirement.

State courts are not subject to the Constitution’s case or controversy requirement and are therefore free to issue advisory opinions so long as their state constitutions allow. See, for example, the advisory opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding civil unions.

keeper post

 

[BackAgain]

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. ~Carl Sagan
(Book: The Demon-Haunted World

Zzz

You’ve been bamboozled into believing the nonsense your masters tell you to believe.

They tell you “Trump” broke several laws. You dutifully lap it up.

If you had the slightest ability to be objective (which s what’s known as a “contrary to fact” hypothesis), you’d question lots of the left wing propagandist media claims you accept at face value. But you don’t.

They tell you to believe that Trump sought to “overthrow” an election. You buy it. In reality, of course, what he tried to do was challenge the call based on the evidence he of fraud.

They tell you to believe that he fomented an “insurrection.” There was, in reality, no insurrection or attempted insurrection.

They tell you to believe that he had previously colluded with Russia. It was fantasy and got exposed as bullshit. But you believed it.

They told you about “pee tapes.” Never got established as anything but Shrillary’s bought and paid for psy ops. But you bought it.

There isn’t much anti Trump crap which you won’t buy based on ultra partisan gullibility.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Zzz

You’ve been bamboozled into believing the nonsense your masters tell you to believe.

They tell you “Trump” broke several laws. You dutifully lap it up.

If you had the slightest ability to be objective (which s what’s known as a “contrary to fact” hypothesis), you’d question lots of the left wing propagandist media claims you accept at face value. But you don’t.

They tell you to believe that Trump sought to “overthrow” an election. You buy it. In reality, of course, what he tried to do was challenge the call based on the evidence he of fraud.

They tell you to believe that he fomented an “insurrection.” There was, in reality, no insurrection or attempted insurrection.

They tell you to believe that he had previously colluded with Russia. It was fantasy and got exposed as bullshit. But you believed it.

They told you about “pee tapes.” Never got established as anything but Shrillary’s bought and paid for psy ops. But you bought it.

There isn’t much anti Trump crap which you won’t buy based on ultra partisan gullibility.

the evidence he found of fraud?

You’ve been bamboozled

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No. XX-XX
In the Supreme Court of the United States
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BEFORE JUDGMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ No. 23- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. DONALD J. TRUMP _______________ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT _______________ MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING ON THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT AND FOR EXPEDITED MERITS BRIEFING IF THE COURT GRANTS THE PETITION


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
______________
No. 23-3228
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant-Appellant
______________
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION
FOR EXPEDITED APPELLATE REVIEW

Where oh where is there an asking for an advisory opinion?

Special Counsel Jack Smith Petitions the Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s Immunity Defense

Smith also filed a motion for expedited review in the D.C. Circuit to prevent delay of Trump’s Jan. 6 trial

www.lawfaremedia.org

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24213189/usa-motion-to-expedite.pdf

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24213180/20231211115417267_no-23-624-us-v-donald-j-trump-petition.pdf

Where oh where is there an asking for an advisory opinion?

advisory opinion​

Primary tabs​

An advisory opinion is a court's nonbinding interpretation of law. It states the opinion of a court upon a legal question submitted by a legislature, government official, or another court. Parties seeking advisory opinions tend to do so to better understand their odds of winning a potential lawsuit before risking the expensive process of litigation.
Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions because of the Constitution's case-or-controversy requirement.
State courts are not subject to the Constitution’s case or controversy requirement and are therefore free to issue advisory opinions so long as their state constitutions allow. See, for example, the advisory opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding civil unions.

advisory opinion

www.law.cornell.edu

Hmm...

 

[BackAgain]

the evidence he found of fraud?

You’ve been bamboozled

Your denial shows (conclusively) that you have been.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your denial shows (conclusively) that you have been.

You believe Trump found evidence of fraud, and that's why he had a plan before the vote was in to have fake electors and such?

Trump has a history

2016 Election

With No Evidence, Trump Claims 'Millions' Voted Illegally​

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, a Democrat charged with ensuring the state's vote goes smoothly, called Trump's claims "absurd."

 

[BackAgain]

Hmm...

You moron. You actually believe that it has to use the words “advisory opinion” for it to essentially be seeking an advisory opinion.

Also, just to clarify another thing you have grave difficulty grappling with:

I don’t imagine that Trump’s legal team will seek to invoke the prohibition against advisory opinions. Why would they?

I anticipate that the SCOTUS will invoke it sua sponte.

 

[candycorn]

I'm not the one with the administration that is a raging dumpster fire, Candy. Cry? I spend most of my time shaking my head at how incompetent the guy you voted for is. How are you feeling these days?

Feeling great. You seem miserable. Tissue?

 

[forkup]

Fuckup is wrong, as expected.

I’d try to dumb it down sufficiently for even a moron like him to grasp, but that’s probably not worth all the effort.

What fuckup can’t quite fathom is that there is a very good chance (albeit not a certainty) that the SCOTUS may simply decide that this does seek an advisory opinion. And there’s no reason to do that.

In the normal course of events, the case will proceed and if there is a conviction, there will be appeals. When the case then appears before the SCOTUS, that will be a proper time to address the issues. Morons like fuckup seem to feel a “need” to rush to judgment.

The “need” is illusory.

Besides, if we assume a conviction, but we also assume that Trump wins the Presidency again, the federal cases will simply go away.

The State cases will have to be dealt with, just the same. There’s time enough for that.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

It took SCOTUS about 5 seconds to decide to grant the motion. Slightly slower than the 4 seconds it took me point out that your "advisory opinion" bs was just that BS.

Now feel free to explain why you were right and SCOTUS is wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

Link us up to my post saying 2020 was was stolen sealybobo

Bring it, or admit you are a lying sack of vermin shit.

GO!

You don't believe 2020 was stolen?

Are you voting for a man who thinks 2020 was stolen? Close enough. And basically what you are admitting here is you don't care that Trump lied about that. You admit he lied about that and you are still going to vote for him. Thanks for admitting that then if you don't believe 2020 was stolen.

 

[sealybobo]

In other words, you disagree.

And because you happen to disagree, then in your limited view of reality, I become the person who needs to “grow up.”

So Mitch said he couldn't impeach Trump for Jan6 because he wasn't POTUS anymore. But now Trump's lawyer is suggesting he was?

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president.

 

[SavannahMann]

Wrong.

Such a “law” (if any President had any ability to legislate) wouldn’t apply to a President anyway.

And that is why the motion before the Supreme Court. Jack Smith is saying that Trump is slow walking the argument in an effort to delay prosecution.

 

[Billiejeens]

to put their consideration of whether to hear the case on a fast track.

You all understand that all that they have agreed to do is to answer whether or not they will take the case, quickly.

 

[Nostra]

You don't believe 2020 was stolen?

Are you voting for a man who thinks 2020 was stolen? Close enough. And basically what you are admitting here is you don't care that Trump lied about that. You admit he lied about that and you are still going to vote for him. Thanks for admitting that then if you don't believe 2020 was stolen.

You made a claim you can’t back up.

You are a lying sack of vermin shit.

 

[sealybobo]

You made a claim you can’t back up.

You are a lying sack of vermin shit.

Trump made a claim too he can't back up and you're voting for him. He's your messiah but I'm vermin?

I've always said Republicans hold us to a higher standard than they hold themselves.

 

[BackAgain]

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

It took SCOTUS about 5 seconds to decide to grant the motion. Slightly slower than the 4 seconds it took me point out that your "advisory opinion" bs was just that BS.

Now feel free to explain why you were right and SCOTUS is wrong.

They didn’t grant the motion, you ignorant twat.

Lol

They agreed only to consider doing so

Your ignorance isn’t just atrociously deep, but terrifically laughable.

 

[BackAgain]

So Mitch said he couldn't impeach Trump for Jan6 because he wasn't POTUS anymore. But now Trump's lawyer is suggesting he was?

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president.

On Jan 6, for those with a calendar, President Trumo was still President.

Facts. Get to know them.

 

[BackAgain]

And that is why the motion before the Supreme Court. Jack Smith is saying that Trump is slow walking the argument in an effort to delay prosecution.

So what? If his motives include slow walking, don’t care. He’s the defendant and thus entitled to proceed as he sees fit.

Smith actually appears to have ulterior motives.

But as a baseline, if he wants to get an official “ok” to proceed with the trial (rather than go through it all only to then find out that Trump was right), I’m not at all concerned.

Bottom line is still this: there’s no reason to assume that the SCOTUS would have entertained the Trump motion anyway. There’s no need to rush it.

 

[sealybobo]

On Jan 6, for those with a calendar, President Trumo was still President.

Facts. Get to know them.

Feb 2021​

McConnell says Trump was "practically and morally responsible" for riot after voting not guilty​

But McConnell argued that he believed it was unconstitutional to convict a president who was no longer in office.

"This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out," McConnell said.

"There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," he said, and added that Mr. Trump watched the events unfold on television. "A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name," he said. "These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him."

McConnell said the people who stormed the Capitol believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of Mr. Trump. "Having that belief," McConnell said, "was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet earth."

LIKE HOW HE CALLED HIM MR TRUMP NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP?

McConnell described the violence on January 6, saying that Americans beat and bloodied their own police, stormed the Senate floor and built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. "They did this," McConnell said, "because they'd been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth, because he was angry he lost an election."

But McConnell argued that the former president "is constitutionally not eligible for conviction" because he is no longer in office — even though the Senate voted 56-44 earlier this week that it was constitutionally possible to convict a former official.

"If President Trump were still in office," he said, "I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge."

McConnell prevented the Senate from holding the impeachment trial before Mr. Trump left office. He refused to agree to an emergency session of the Senate to conduct the trial, arguing there was not enough time to conduct it fairly before President Biden took office. Mr. Biden was inaugurated seven days after the House voted to impeach Mr. Trump.

The trial, which began on February 9, lasted only five days.

Although Mr. Trump was acquitted of inciting the riot in the Senate trial, he could still face criminal charges. A Georgia prosecutor has opened a criminal investigation into Mr. Trump's alleged attempts to influence the presidential election in the state. And, separately, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance is also overseeing an investigation into Mr. Trump for possible crimes as wide-ranging as fraud and tax evasion.

 

[BackAgain]

Feb 2021​

McConnell says Trump was "practically and morally responsible" for riot after voting not guilty​

But McConnell argued that he believed it was unconstitutional to convict a president who was no longer in office.

"This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out," McConnell said.

"There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," he said, and added that Mr. Trump watched the events unfold on television. "A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name," he said. "These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him."

McConnell said the people who stormed the Capitol believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of Mr. Trump. "Having that belief," McConnell said, "was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet earth."

LIKE HOW HE CALLED HIM MR TRUMP NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP?

McConnell described the violence on January 6, saying that Americans beat and bloodied their own police, stormed the Senate floor and built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. "They did this," McConnell said, "because they'd been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth, because he was angry he lost an election."

But McConnell argued that the former president "is constitutionally not eligible for conviction" because he is no longer in office — even though the Senate voted 56-44 earlier this week that it was constitutionally possible to convict a former official.

"If President Trump were still in office," he said, "I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge."

McConnell prevented the Senate from holding the impeachment trial before Mr. Trump left office. He refused to agree to an emergency session of the Senate to conduct the trial, arguing there was not enough time to conduct it fairly before President Biden took office. Mr. Biden was inaugurated seven days after the House voted to impeach Mr. Trump.

The trial, which began on February 9, lasted only five days.

Although Mr. Trump was acquitted of inciting the riot in the Senate trial, he could still face criminal charges. A Georgia prosecutor has opened a criminal investigation into Mr. Trump's alleged attempts to influence the presidential election in the state. And, separately, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance is also overseeing an investigation into Mr. Trump for possible crimes as wide-ranging as fraud and tax evasion.

McConnell was wrong.

So what?