Jack Smith: Lawyer Up

[BillsFanNC]

 

Edited November 6 by BillsFanNC

[Joe Ferguson forever]

no, it goes to appeals court Jan 10.  they can decide to take it soon after or better yet, they can punt.  that's my bet.  dumbass.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna130769

Edited December 22, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[BillsFanNC]

 ⬆️ 

 

Quack, MD : Laughingstock 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Just now, BillsFanNC said:

 ⬆️ 

 

Quack, MD : Laughingstock 

 

God you're witty.  oops, only half correct.  dimwit.  Not the one that didn't understand the meaning of this story.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Another story NC won't understand

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-brag-supreme-court-race/?cx_testId=6&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=2&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

[njbuff]

Jack Smith was on the receiving end from that ***** Dem staffer.

[Doc]

Jack looks like he's close to breaking.  I don't know if he actually is, he just looks like it.  He needs more laughter in his life.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Doc

[All_Pro_Bills]

Smith needed the expedited request granted in order to try the case during the primary season and acquire a conviction in the DC Kangaroo Court before the general election in November.  That would facilitate additional legal actions that would interfere with the campaign and election.  But the SCOTUS denial of his request likely pushes the timeline back to after the election.  And that's too late for a verdict to impact the outcome.  One obvious message is the Supreme Court justices don't want to get involved in determining the outcome of the election.  Where that leaves things now is several motions for dismissal denied by the judge will need to work their way through the appeals process before a trial can begin.  A Supreme Court ruling on the case would have nullified these appeals.  

Edited December 23, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[BillStime]

16 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 ⬆️ 

 

Quack, MD : Laughingstock 

 

No - that would you be you - our resident psyop and race baiter.

 

You're an idiot if you think this has anything to do w the merits of the case.

 

But I get it Karen - you have to celebrate your wins no matter how inconsequential. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

10 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Smith needed the expedited request granted in order to try the case during the primary season and acquire a conviction in the DC Kangaroo Court before the general election in November.  That would facilitate additional legal actions that would interfere with the campaign and election.  But the SCOTUS denial of his request likely pushes the timeline back to after the election.  And that's too late for a verdict to impact the outcome.  One obvious message is the Supreme Court justices don't want to get involved in determining the outcome of the election.  Where that leaves things now is several motions for dismissal denied by the judge will need to work their way through the appeals process before a trial can begin.  A Supreme Court ruling on the case would have nullified these appeals.  

A lot of people seem to be drawing unfounded conclusions here.

Trump tweeted (truth-socialed?) something about how the Supreme Court thankfully decided to follow "our great constitution"

There is nothing implicating the constitution here. The constitution established the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to set up lower (trial and initially appeals) courts. Congress did that. So the normal rules of court (NOT of the constitution) say you appeal first to the first-level appeals court, then if your appeal is denied you can ask the Supreme Court to hear it. Rules, not "our great constitution."

And like any rules, there's exceptions. Usually you have to wait for the trial court to hear the entire case before you can appeal. So it's verdict (guilty/not guilty), then sentencing, then appeal. But the rules allow you to ask a higher court to hear an appeal of a particular issue before the final judgment. That's called an "interlocutory appeal" (fancy word for "an appeal in the middle of a trial court proceeding"). It's unusual  to grant these requests.

Here, I think the Supreme Court should have agreed to hear the issue of immunity. As I said, it is a pure issue of law: is the President immune from prosecution from any and everything illegal he may have done while he was President? There's no issues of fact that need to be decided by the trial court first. By denying to hear the case now, it makes things even messier. If the Supreme Court had said yes, he's immune, the case is dismissed. Over. Done. If they say no, he's not immune, Trump's defense team can concentrate their resources on other issues of fact and law.

What happens now? A lot of people seem to think that the trial judge will kick the case forward indefinitely. I don't think so. I think the first level appeals court probably also says it's premature to hear the appeal. And so we're back to square one. Maybe with some delay, but trial by late spring/early summer. Or maybe (worst case scenario) after the convention. Or even worse: in the lame duck period if Trump wins. That's something everyone should want to avoid. 

The constitution says nothing about whether the Supreme Court should have stepped in now. It's a pure judgment call. I think it was a mistake for them not to.

[John from Riverside]

On 12/22/2023 at 2:09 PM, BillsFanNC said:

 

Did you ever get tired of being wrong?

22 hours ago, Doc said:

Jack looks like he's close to breaking.  I don't know if he actually is, he just looks like it.  He needs more laughter in his life.

Jack Smith looks the same as he has from the beginning he looks like a dark age inquisitor

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

A lot of people seem to be drawing unfounded conclusions here.

Trump tweeted (truth-socialed?) something about how the Supreme Court thankfully decided to follow "our great constitution"

There is nothing implicating the constitution here. The constitution established the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to set up lower (trial and initially appeals) courts. Congress did that. So the normal rules of court (NOT of the constitution) say you appeal first to the first-level appeals court, then if your appeal is denied you can ask the Supreme Court to hear it. Rules, not "our great constitution."

And like any rules, there's exceptions. Usually you have to wait for the trial court to hear the entire case before you can appeal. So it's verdict (guilty/not guilty), then sentencing, then appeal. But the rules allow you to ask a higher court to hear an appeal of a particular issue before the final judgment. That's called an "interlocutory appeal" (fancy word for "an appeal in the middle of a trial court proceeding"). It's unusual  to grant these requests.

Here, I think the Supreme Court should have agreed to hear the issue of immunity. As I said, it is a pure issue of law: is the President immune from prosecution from any and everything illegal he may have done while he was President? There's no issues of fact that need to be decided by the trial court first. By denying to hear the case now, it makes things even messier. If the Supreme Court had said yes, he's immune, the case is dismissed. Over. Done. If they say no, he's not immune, Trump's defense team can concentrate their resources on other issues of fact and law.

What happens now? A lot of people seem to think that the trial judge will kick the case forward indefinitely. I don't think so. I think the first level appeals court probably also says it's premature to hear the appeal. And so we're back to square one. Maybe with some delay, but trial by late spring/early summer. Or maybe (worst case scenario) after the convention. Or even worse: in the lame duck period if Trump wins. That's something everyone should want to avoid. 

The constitution says nothing about whether the Supreme Court should have stepped in now. It's a pure judgment call. I think it was a mistake for them not to.

From the outside looking in, It certainly appears to be a rebuke of the SC.  You’ve laid out the facts as you see them quite reasonably.  Perhaps that was Smith’s thinking, too.  But in the end, his request was rejected, almost as if to say “Slow down, Jack, let’s follow the normal process to avoid the appearance of a partisan witch hunt deigned to 🤬 with the election”. 
 

Put another way, there is a lot riding in this.  The stage is being set for what future political skirmishes might look like, and when the SC swings and misses on a grand scale, it looks like a rush to judgement and kind of sloppy. 
 

On your second point, why should “everyone” want to avoid the matter being decided after a Trump win, of course, assuming he wins?  I’d assume most Trump supporters would want an adverse decision to come when there was theoretically a chance for him to push back. 

[John from Riverside]

14 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

From the outside looking in, It certainly appears to be a rebuke of the SC.  You’ve laid out the facts as you see them quite reasonably.  Perhaps that was Smith’s thinking, too.  But in the end, his request was rejected, almost as if to say “Slow down, Jack, let’s follow the normal process to avoid the appearance of a partisan witch hunt deigned to 🤬 with the election”. 
 

Put another way, there is a lot riding in this.  The stage is being set for what future political skirmishes might look like, and when the SC swings and misses on a grand scale, it looks like a rush to judgement and kind of sloppy. 
 

On your second point, why should “everyone” want to avoid the matter being decided after a Trump win, of course, assuming he wins?  I’d assume most Trump supporters would want an adverse decision to come when there was theoretically a chance for him to push back. 

The only rebuke that I actually see from the Supreme Court is that they don’t want to make a quick decision
 

I actually don’t fault for that

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

The only rebuke that I actually see from the Supreme Court is that they don’t want to make a quick decision
 

I actually don’t fault for that

Hmm, rebuke might not be the right word. 
 

Smith doesn’t push the plan unless he’s certain he is right to do so, and certain to win.  By sending him back to school, a message is sent as well. 
 

Ah, cr@p, I’m sticking with rebuke. 

[John from Riverside]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Hmm, rebuke might not be the right word. 
 

Smith doesn’t push the plan unless he’s certain he is right to do so, and certain to win.  By sending him back to school, a message is sent as well. 
 

Ah, cr@p, I’m sticking with rebuke. 

What message do you think is being sent?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

What message do you think is being sent?

That the SC appeal to expedite the resolution by stepping outside the normal process followed was a very bad idea. 
 

Smith is pursuing a criminal case against a former president, with a high percentage of the population thinking its a partisan attack AND that Biden has acted unethically….do you think Smith doesn’t understand the gravity of his request? The message sent in rejecting it?  
 

He’s not in this to lose. 

Edited December 24, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[EasternOHBillsFan]

On 12/22/2023 at 5:09 PM, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

TRUMP is the laughingstock... of the WORLD no less. FOUR different court venues for four different cases from varying degrees of criminality.

[John from Riverside]

1 hour ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

TRUMP is the laughingstock... of the WORLD no less. FOUR different court venues for four different cases from varying degrees of criminality.

The only people that don’t see this are people that are OK having a president that’s a felon

[Doc]

2 hours ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

TRUMP is the laughingstock... of the WORLD no less. FOUR different court venues for four different cases from varying degrees of criminality.

 

Meanwhile with Biden, they're shaking their heads at how incompetent and feeble he looks...to the WORLD no less.

[The Frankish Reich]

So here's what's really happening:

- Trial Court Judge Chutkan ruled "no immunity from criminal acts committed while serving as President"

- TRUMP's team (TRUMP's team) filed an interlocutory appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, asking them to rule on that issue before he goes to trial.

- Jack Smith filed a petition straight to the Supreme Court, saying "let's settle this once and for all before the highest court in the land before going to trial." The Supreme Court said: Sorry. Not this time.

- The DC Circuit has accepted the interlocutory appeal and set a briefing schedule. A pretty fast one. They'll decide the issue quickly. Point of interest: it's a panel of 3 judges. One appointed by Bush 41, two by Biden. Pretty much nobody thinks that any panel, regardless of who appointed them, would rule that he has general immunity forevermore. The best you could get is "immune from acts that primarily/significantly/something like that stem from his official Presidential duties." So it'll go back to Judge Chutkan to hold the trial.

- What happens then? Well, the tables are turned! It'll be TRUMP asking the Supreme Court to intervene by (you guessed it) filing an emergency petition for an exceptional interlocutory appeal ("a writ of certiorari during the pendency of a proceeding.")

 

Any defendant prefers delay if he's not in custody. Always and everywhere. And that's doubly true for a guy who could escape answering charges for 5 years if he's elected again.