The lawfare against Trump takes a new twist

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.”

Childish name calling and juvenile labeling?

 

[Robert W]

You're nuts if you think Biden is the liar and Trump is honest.

You must be a wack job in real life.

I wasn't planning on being a chicken shit and discussing you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I’m sure Smith is well aware of the nature of the dispute, much of the evidence and the law. And I said nothing to the contrary.

It’s not even clear what you’re talking about.

You are saying 'what amounts to" an advisory opinion. Mr. Smith knows not to seek an advisory opinion. Claiming he is doing so is an argument that he does not know the law.

So you disagree with yourself here BackAgain ?

 

[forkup]

It asks for an advisory opinion: “May I, the special persecutor, please have a grant of permission to take my case to trial?”

No. That’s not how it works. Unless a lower court has tossed the charges, or unless there is a plea or the prosecutor chooses unilaterally to file its cards, indicted cases go to trial. THEN (if there is a conviction), appeals get heard. The “case is controversy” is the one that has already been concluded at the trial level.

If the SCOTUS were to issue an advisory opinion as requested and found that the trial could proceed, then later on down the road, the issue about the invalidity of the very charges would likely have to come up again on appeal. Would it be proper for the Court to then pass judgment on the very issue they previously ruled upon in that very case? No. In fact, as a legal matter, since each of the Justices would have already rendered a prior decision on the matter, they would legally violating the rules against deciding a case before it is brought to them.

Hey. SCOTUS Justices will do what they will. My thought is only one view of it. Others can reasonably disagree. That’s casual.

I will explain the meaning of your link since you are unable or unwilling to understand.

Say the case has started it's pre-trial motions, and Trump is claiming absolute immunity on Fox news. Upon which Smith asks the courts to weigh in on the question. At that point he would be asking for an advisory opinion because no actual motion is filed arguing absolute immunity.

Here this is not the case. Trump's lawyers filed the motion claiming absolute immunity. Chutkan rejected the argument and Trump is now appealing. That's all litigation and nothing about the argument is hypothetical since arguments have been presented and have been ruled on.

As for YOUR interpretation of how a trial works. I wasn't aware pre-trial motions only get appealed after the case has gone to trial. Guess Trump is jumping the gun on hoping all the PRE-TRIAL litigation will postpone the trial.




I appreciate you linking Cornell law. Now the only thing you have to do is actually understand it and you're golden.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

What possible reason could they give that he can't be prosecuted?

First Mitch said he couldn't impeach Trump because he was no longer president. Now you're going to say he can't be prosecuted? Why? Mitch said Trump was guilty of starting the insurrection but impeachment wasn't appropriate because he was no longer president.

So is the Supreme Court going to say presidents are above the law? Bad precedent you are setting here.

It’s academic.

As I said, I doubt the SCOTUS will accept the Special Persecutor’s application.

Instead, after the trials are alone on me and almost all of the appeals are finished, the SCOTUS will then very probably accept the appeal case or cases.

Nobody has said that Presidents are not ought to be above the law. That’s just a simplistic bit of baseless rhetoric.

The questions will be whether or not the indictments charge any crimes at all. They name some. They make passing reference to some elements of the various charged crimes. But they do not necessarily establish that the various laws were ever actually violated by the accused — not just as a factual matter, but as a legal matter.

And, either way, I seriously doubt that SCOTUS will be lulled into pre-determining the issues before they get fully developed at trial and on appeal.

 

[sealybobo]

Blacks which you keep mentioning are truly super slow. What takes them so long?

Bush did not count any of the ballots. Stop blaming Bush. And when Gore and him went to Court, only the Democrats sided with Gore. Gore admitted he lost.

Gore conceded for the good of our democracy. Gore knew he got screwed. Don't you remember when he certified the vote he rolled his eyes in disgust.

See, this is why goober Republicans don't run any big blue cities. You have no idea the logistics nightmare it is to run an election and get all those votes turned in by 8pm.

Roger Stone likes to take credit for the riot Republicans started in 2000 to stop the recount. If they were confident they were going to win they would not have started a riot.

I suspect they could tell they were going to lose. OR, they knew that the vote totals would show how many votes were thrown out in black areas.

Don't you get it? You live in a white city that votes for Bush. They don't throw any of your hanging chad ballots away.

And none of you accidentally voted for Buchanan because he was confusingly lined up with Gore. Buchanan only stole from Gore.

The GOP were very clever in that they employed several tactics to make sure they won 2000.

And basically the voters in Florida didn't decide. The Supreme Court did. And did you hear their opinons/justifications? One conservative judge basically said, "this opinion only matters in this one case. Do not try to use my justification for future precident".

In other words he just pulled a bullshit justification for why he gave it to Bush. Fact is, and the Supreme Court did rule on this, Florida was stolen.

And I don't even want to hear one more word from you. Imagine if in 2020 Trump lost by one state and the Governor of that state was Hunter Biden. Give me a fucking break bitch.

 

[BackAgain]

You are saying 'what amounts to" an advisory opinion. Mr. Smith knows not to seek an advisory opinion. Claiming he is doing son, is an argument he does not know the law.

Saying that he is seeking what amounts to an advisory opinion means exactly that.

What he does or doesn’t recognize isn’t part of the equation.

Put it this way. If I’m right in my present guesswork, and the SCOTUS declines his present motion and says (explicitly) that they deem the motion to be one which seeks an advisory opinion, what difference does it make whether Smith grasps it yet or not?

 

[Nostra]

i am shocked. you know this supreme court is corrupt, don't you? they will decide whatever harlan crowe and the federalist society want/

Well then, sux to be you.

 

[Rambunctious]

Smith wouldn't do this if he didn't already know the outcome... so who on the court is he conspiring with?....

 

[Nostra]

This was Trump's hope/plan all along. Like The Supreme's gave Bush Florida in 2000, Trump was hoping 2020 was going to happen the same way. Argue it all the way to the Supreme Court.

In one version of the steal, the Supreme's would say that each Senator gets 1 vote. And I believe if that's how they decided, Trump would have won. Bottom line is Trump wanted to overturn the elections with shady business. Just like Florida was "won" with shinanigans.

^^^^Election denier^^^^^

 

[BackAgain]

I will explain the meaning of your link since you are unable or unwilling to understand.

Say the case has started it's pre-trial motions, and Trump is claiming absolute immunity on Fox news. Upon which Smith asks the courts to weigh in on the question. At that point he would be asking for an advisory opinion because no actual motion is filed arguing absolute immunity.

Here this is not the case. Trump's lawyers filed the motion claiming absolute immunity. Chutkan rejected the argument and Trump is now appealing. That's all litigation and nothing about the argument is hypothetical since arguments have been presented and have been ruled on.

As for YOUR interpretation of how a trial works. I wasn't aware pre-trial motions only get appealed after the case has gone to trial. Guess Trump is jumping the gun on hoping all the PRE-TRIAL litigation will postpone the trial.




I appreciate you linking Cornell law. Now the only thing you have to do is actually understand it and you're golden.

I already explained things to you.

I am not responsible for your inability to understand. You’re a condescending little priss, but your ignorance is spectacular.

 

[Nostra]

Smith asking USSC to do it for him because he lacks what is necessary

He is trying to figure out how to not get bitchslapped by the SC for once in his pathetic career.

 

[BackAgain]

He is trying to figure out how to not get bitchslapped by the SC for once in his pathetic career.

He does have a history of that.

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

I will explain the meaning of your link since you are unable or unwilling to understand.

Say the case has started it's pre-trial motions, and Trump is claiming absolute immunity on Fox news. Upon which Smith asks the courts to weigh in on the question. At that point he would be asking for an advisory opinion because no actual motion is filed arguing absolute immunity.

Here this is not the case. Trump's lawyers filed the motion claiming absolute immunity. Chutkan rejected the argument and Trump is now appealing. That's all litigation and nothing about the argument is hypothetical since arguments have been presented and have been ruled on.

As for YOUR interpretation of how a trial works. I wasn't aware pre-trial motions only get appealed after the case has gone to trial. Guess Trump is jumping the gun on hoping all the PRE-TRIAL litigation will postpone the trial.




I appreciate you linking Cornell law. Now the only thing you have to do is actually understand it and you're golden.

 

[bripat9643]

What's funny is while President, Trump passed a law making what Hillary did a felony.

Yes, Trump signed a law that made mishandling classified documents a felony​

While he was president, Donald Trump did sign a law that made it a felony to mishandle classified documents instead of a misdemeanor.

Are you suggesting he should not be subject to this law?

It was always a felony, moron. Several people went to prison for it during Obama's presidency.

 

[forkup]

I already explained things to you.

I am not responsible for your inability to understand. You’re a condescending little priss, but your ignorance is spectacular.

You didn't explain shit. What you did was post a link to people who are actually knowledgeable. People who clearly stated that advisory opinions are opinions that are NOT being litigated in court. In this case the question is clearly being litigated. It's even being appealed.

You on the other hand choose to ignore all that because you don't have the intellectual honesty or reading comprehension skill to admit you are spouting BS.

 

[Billiejeens]

i am shocked. you know this supreme court is corrupt, don't you? they will decide whatever harlan crowe and the federalist society want/

i wish

 

[forkup]

First, different BS argument that Back is making. He's stating that the Supreme Court can't make a decision.

This person on X. (Great source btw) is claiming the question is too complicated or has to be made in to short of time by the Supreme Court of the United States, the final word on legal issues. Of course, Scotus already has with Nixon and the arguments Trump is making have been rejected several times already.

 

[Billiejeens]

Thanks for acting promptly.
But we aren't buying the 'editing excuse.

You are fucking irrelevant.

 

[Billiejeens]

biden/garland allowed trump to leave, and live, in peace. this war was declared by the political terrorist that YOU are enabling,

you are retarded on a spectacular level.