leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 24, 2023 Posted December 24, 2023 3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: 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. Interesting. Why do you think the Supreme Court said “not this time”? clearly Smith thought he had an angle, and you’ve commented as such. Why did the SC think it was an unreasonable move? 1
The Frankish Reich Posted December 25, 2023 Posted December 25, 2023 17 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Interesting. Why do you think the Supreme Court said “not this time”? clearly Smith thought he had an angle, and you’ve commented as such. Why did the SC think it was an unreasonable move? First, Merry Christmas! To answer your question, let's think about what happens now: - The Appeals Court (likely) denies Trump's immunity claim, he appeals that to the Supreme Court. - The Supreme Court has to decide all over again whether to jump in now (rather than earlier) and is seen as a political body seeking to rescue Trump - Or they decline to hear the case now (applying the usual "wait for the judgment on all issues," particularly since Trump could be acquitted at trial) and we may get a guilty verdict that is subject to being overturned AFTER the election. All of those are worse scenarios than deciding it right away. There's no strict rule on when the Supreme Court takes jurisdiction. Right now, it's about trying to resolve issues fairly and as early as possible. That's my take. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 25, 2023 Posted December 25, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: First, Merry Christmas! To answer your question, let's think about what happens now: - The Appeals Court (likely) denies Trump's immunity claim, he appeals that to the Supreme Court. - The Supreme Court has to decide all over again whether to jump in now (rather than earlier) and is seen as a political body seeking to rescue Trump - Or they decline to hear the case now (applying the usual "wait for the judgment on all issues," particularly since Trump could be acquitted at trial) and we may get a guilty verdict that is subject to being overturned AFTER the election. All of those are worse scenarios than deciding it right away. There's no strict rule on when the Supreme Court takes jurisdiction. Right now, it's about trying to resolve issues fairly and as early as possible. That's my take. Thanks Frankish, I appreciate the reply. I hope you and your family have an awesome and Merry Christmas as well! Edited December 25, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd
Joe Ferguson forever Posted December 25, 2023 Posted December 25, 2023 (edited) 22 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: 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. in essence, he's scum Edited December 25, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever
BillsFanNC Posted December 27, 2023 Author Posted December 27, 2023 Now why should the jury hear any inconvenient j6 evidence in a case about j6? Laughingstock 1 1 1
Westside Posted December 27, 2023 Posted December 27, 2023 On 12/22/2023 at 5:44 PM, Joe Ferguson forever said: God you're witty. oops, only half correct. dimwit. Not the one that didn't understand the meaning of this story. Says the guy who think red states are more violent than blue! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Joe Ferguson forever Posted December 27, 2023 Posted December 27, 2023 (edited) Just now, Westside said: Says the guy who think red states are more violent than blue! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 prove me wrong, loser. cite a reference. btw, not all crime is violent, Thank God.... Edited December 27, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever 1
BillStime Posted December 27, 2023 Posted December 27, 2023 39 minutes ago, Westside said: Says the guy who think red states are more violent than blue! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Reality is tough for you. 1
Tommy Callahan Posted December 27, 2023 Posted December 27, 2023 47 minutes ago, Westside said: Says the guy who think red states are more violent than blue! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Its hard to decide if they are truly that ignorant (dont leave the house) and actually believe it. or are purely trolls just trying to get a reply.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted December 27, 2023 Posted December 27, 2023 (edited) Just now, Tommy Callahan said: Its hard to decide if they are truly that ignorant (dont leave the house) and actually believe it. or are purely trolls just trying to get a reply. you readily reply but almost never give answers. not difficult to "troll" U... Edited December 27, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever 1 1
Tommy Callahan Posted December 27, 2023 Posted December 27, 2023 Just now, Joe Ferguson forever said: you readily reply but almost never give answers. not difficult to "troll" U... Gotta get that reply in. And your saying you are a troll that makes racist comments for replies? It's good to know your not an actual racist. Just a drunk troll. Lol 1 1
John from Riverside Posted December 27, 2023 Posted December 27, 2023 On 12/24/2023 at 2:01 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Interesting. Why do you think the Supreme Court said “not this time”? clearly Smith thought he had an angle, and you’ve commented as such. Why did the SC think it was an unreasonable move? I took the Supreme Court decision as more not at this time, rather than not this time They wanted more time to rule it pretty fair the Supreme Court asked me But thinking in someway that this is going to delay or derail jacks is laughable I’m telling you right now some of you guys are setting yourself up for disappointment if you actually like Trump because federal prosecutors very seldom lose and he has a lot of at bats 4 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: Gotta get that reply in. And your saying you are a troll that makes racist comments for replies? It's good to know your not an actual racist. Just a drunk troll. Lol Come from someone who has literally worn out the eye roll emoticon and changed your screen name to do it 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 28, 2023 Posted December 28, 2023 29 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: I took the Supreme Court decision as more not at this time, rather than not this time They wanted more time to rule it pretty fair the Supreme Court asked me But thinking in someway that this is going to delay or derail jacks is laughable I’m telling you right now some of you guys are setting yourself up for disappointment if you actually like Trump because federal prosecutors very seldom lose and he has a lot of at bats You don't have to tell me anything, John, it will play out however it plays out. I'm not anti-Smith, I'm just a citizen watching this incredible thing play out. I agree with you on federal prosecutors, but that goes back to my original point about selective leaks, the rush to judgement and a setback on something like this. Virtually every card that can be played in held by the government with no real downside to whether or not Smith wins or loses. As a result, when he "loses"on an issue like that, I think it's reasonable for people to question his motives. 1
John from Riverside Posted January 5 Posted January 5 On 12/27/2023 at 10:10 AM, Westside said: Says the guy who think red states are more violent than blue! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 They are per capita
Unforgiven Posted January 5 Posted January 5 On 12/23/2023 at 9:08 PM, EasternOHBillsFan said: TRUMP is the laughingstock... of the WORLD no less. FOUR different court venues for four different cases from varying degrees of criminality. No, America is the laughing stock because of dumb$%$# liberalism.
B-Man Posted February 11 Posted February 11 Jack Smith, in Startling Move, Denounces Judge in Documents Case as ‘Wrong’ It turns out President Trump isn’t the only one who can unleash a tirade against a judge. Could Smith’s next move be a motion for Cannon to recuse herself? https://www.nysun.com/article/jack-smith-in-startling-move-denounces-judge-in-documents-case-as-wrong-and-a-perpetrator-of-manifest-injustice?
Doc Posted February 11 Posted February 11 56 minutes ago, B-Man said: Jack Smith, in Startling Move, Denounces Judge in Documents Case as ‘Wrong’ It turns out President Trump isn’t the only one who can unleash a tirade against a judge. Could Smith’s next move be a motion for Cannon to recuse herself? https://www.nysun.com/article/jack-smith-in-startling-move-denounces-judge-in-documents-case-as-wrong-and-a-perpetrator-of-manifest-injustice? Jackie boy sees his case dying before his eyes...
Recommended Posts