The lawfare against Trump takes a new twist

[BackAgain]

In the echo chamber of the cult-of-personality surrounding Mr. Trump, yes it is.

I bet you imagined that post ^ said something intelligible.

It didn’t.

 

[BackAgain]

Finding out if President Trump is immune from prosecution prior to prosecuting doesn't seem like the worst idea.

Not really the point.

The point is, if they ever wish to address such a claim, it doesn’t have to be on a rushed basis like this.

If he goes to trial and gets acquitted, the ruling would have proved to have been a mere hypothetical question.

If he goes to trial and gets convicted, and the legal challenges survive the appellate process, there is time enough, then, (on a full record) to address that legal contention.

The SCOTUS could reject my belief that this is a request for an advisory opinion. Oh well. Not my call.

 

[BackAgain]

What's improper about it?

What has your right wing media talking heads told you?

Do you support a banana republic where those running for office are above the law?

I realize that left wing fubars like you can’t comprehend that some of us don’t need to be told by others what or how to think.

Advisory opinions don’t pass (U.s.) Constitutional muster. So, the remaining question is simply whether the SCOTUS ends up finding that this application by the Special Persecutor is actually one which seeks an advisory opinion.

Try not to wet your panties.

 

[Oldestyle]

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?

As President, Trump would have the ultimate authority on classification of documents...as Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton would have no such authority at all!

 

[candycorn]

What is keeping Biden and his family from being charged?

Lack of evidence.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I realize that left wing fubars like you can’t comprehend that some of us don’t need to be told by others what or how to think.

Independents are left wing now?

Advisory opinions don’t pass (U.s.) Constitutional muster. So, the remaining question is simply whether the SCOTUS ends up finding that this application by the Special Persecutor is actually one which seeks an advisory opinion.

You may be right or may be wrong but we will have to see how SCOTUS rules.

What Is the Original Jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court?

Cases considered by the Supreme Court under its 'original jurisdiction' are handled very differently than cases heard on appeal as usual.

www.thoughtco.com

• The original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is the court’s authority to hear and decide certain types of cases before they have been heard by any lower court.
• The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is established in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and further defined by federal law.
• The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction applies to cases involving: disputes between states, actions involving various public officials, disputes between the United States and a state, and proceedings by a state against the citizens or aliens of another state.
• Under the Supreme Court’s 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, the U.S. Congress may not alter the scope of the court’s original jurisdiction.

Original jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and decide a case before it has been heard and decided by any lower court. In other words, it is a court’s power to hear and decide a case before any appellate review.

The Fastest Track to the Supreme Court​

As originally defined in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and now codified in federal law at 28 U.S.C. § 1251. Section 1251(a), the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over four categories of cases, meaning parties involved in these types of cases can take them directly to the Supreme Court, thus bypassing the usually lengthy appeals court process.

Try not to wet your panties.

Try not to soil yours.

 

[Arlette]

Not really the point.

The point is, if they ever wish to address such a claim, it doesn’t have to be on a rushed basis like this.

If he goes to trial and gets acquitted, the ruling would have proved to have been a mere hypothetical question.

If he goes to trial and gets convicted, and the legal challenges survive the appellate process, there is time enough, then, (on a full record) to address that legal contention.

The SCOTUS could reject my belief that this is a request for an advisory opinion. Oh well. Not my call.

The SC will take it up. Trump has until Dec 20 to respond.

 

[BackAgain]

Independents are left wing now?



You may be right or may be wrong but we will have to see how SCOTUS rules.

What Is the Original Jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court?

Cases considered by the Supreme Court under its 'original jurisdiction' are handled very differently than cases heard on appeal as usual.

www.thoughtco.com

• The original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is the court’s authority to hear and decide certain types of cases before they have been heard by any lower court.
• The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is established in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and further defined by federal law.
• The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction applies to cases involving: disputes between states, actions involving various public officials, disputes between the United States and a state, and proceedings by a state against the citizens or aliens of another state.
• Under the Supreme Court’s 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, the U.S. Congress may not alter the scope of the court’s original jurisdiction.

Original jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and decide a case before it has been heard and decided by any lower court. In other words, it is a court’s power to hear and decide a case before any appellate review.

The Fastest Track to the Supreme Court​

As originally defined in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and now codified in federal law at 28 U.S.C. § 1251. Section 1251(a), the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over four categories of cases, meaning parties involved in these types of cases can take them directly to the Supreme Court, thus bypassing the usually lengthy appeals court process.


Try not to soil yours.

Nobody buys your claim that you are an independent.

Gfy.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Nobody buys your claim that you are an independent.

Gfy.

Quite the hubris.

You think your opinion applies to everyone and is based on the premise that you can read my mind.

 

[Oldestyle]

Lack of evidence.

Lack of a credible DOJ? Our current Attorney General is a joke!

 

[candycorn]

Lack of a credible DOJ? Our current Attorney General is a joke!

Tissue?

 

[BackAgain]

Quite the hubris.

You think your opinion applies to everyone and is based on the premise that you can read my mind.

As I clearly said: gfy.

You imagine that your bullshit is at all believable. It still isn’t.

 

[Oldestyle]

Tissue?

Every time Merrick has to go in front of Congress it LOOKS like he's about to cry, Candy! He's like the Barney Fife of Attorney Generals. He's a scary combination of incompetent and clueless. You save the tissue for him!

 

[candycorn]

Every time Merrick has to go in front of Congress it LOOKS like he's about to cry, Candy! He's like the Barney Fife of Attorney Generals. He's a scary combination of incompetent and clueless. You save the tissue for him!

You seem to still be crying.

Tissue?

 

[Catsnmeters]

As I clearly said: gfy.

You imagine that your bullshit is at all believable. It still isn’t.

Yawn...double down on the psychic powers angle.

Have a great day.

 

[Oldestyle]

You seem to still be crying.

Tissue?

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?

 

[BackAgain]

Yawn...double down on the psychic powers angle.

Have a great day.

I agree that you’re very boring.

Now, toddle off.

 

[Nostra]

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!

Since sealybobo has decided he can’t bring such a link he has admitted he is a lying sack of vermin shit.

As if we all didn’t already know that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I bet you imagined that post ^ said something intelligible.

It didn’t.

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

 

[toobfreak]

I’m shocked. Imagine asking the SCOTUS for what amounts to an advisory opinion.
Our courts don’t render advisory opinions. So, I expect the SCOTUS to take a pass on accepting the Special Persecutor’s “motion.”

Smith is in effect asking the SC to skip normal judicial process on the assumption of Trump's guilt to save time. However, the function of the SC is to review lower court findings. Since there is no lower court finding yet and indeed, the decision of the present court would need appealed first to the next highest circuit court below the SC first (as Trump promises to do), the SC will pass as in effect, Smith is trying to speed up justice on an assumption not yet reached.