The Supremes will aid and abet Trump's delaying tactics once again.

Based on what?

 

his partisanship on behalf of Biden, plus he's a hard core bannerrhoid

 

Be specific.

 

one example though there is some reports that Garland has pissed off Biden as well
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...garland-in-contempt-over-biden-documents-case

 

We should always abstain from charging people with crimes if those charges will be an inconvenience to them and their career goals as long as their name is Trump - MAGA

 

What you've provided is an example of House Repubs getting pissed off over Hur's conclusion that Biden's case does not warrant prosecution.

“The Committees’ reaction is difficult to explain in terms of any lack of information or frustration of any informational or investigative imperative, given the Department’s actual conduct,” Uriarte wrote. “We are therefore concerned that the Committees are disappointed not because you didn’t receive information, but because you did.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...-in-contempt-over-biden-special-counsel-audio

 

It is not a circular argument. They are claiming either outcome as a win.

 

Yeah they want to have it both ways with Trump. Help get Trump off the hook, but not by actually declaring presidents can't be criminally prosecuted ever. At least they can acknowledge how insane that is, even if they still want to protect Trump.

 

Your hypothesis doesn't make any sense. These charges were brought before it was clear Trump would be the nominee. You guys were perfectly free to choose a non-criminal.

And generally, the democrats do get more popular votes. Republicans win mostly by edging out democrats in swing states, whose opinions apparently matter more.

 

The Popular vote isn't the presidential electorate. I'm not sure why some folks on the Left are lost on this. There is NO elected office in the entire nation, and there never has been, where the electorate is the national popular vote.

It seems like that would make this fact easier to remember, but alas, much of the Left still seems lost.

To bad the idiot judge wrote such a sloppy decision that SCOTUS may have remand the decision back to DC court for a redo. Is much of the left lost on the logical fallacy of a tautological argument or is this mainly this idiot judge?

This was pretty important case for her to pooch kick, after all Bribed Joe was depending on a bunch of trials to keep Trump tied up through the election season so that he could be drained of cash, unable to campaign, and maybe even convicted of one of the trumped up charges in a kangaroo court.

Presidential Bribery and the Clear Statement Rule in Trump v. United States: Revisiting Issues From The First Trump Impeachment and the Mueller Investigation
Questions from Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch revisit unresolved issues from 2017-2020.

'Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. United States, the presidential immunity case. Much of the argument concerned issues left unresolved during the Trump presidency.'

Just Law is Clear Law - Free Citizens have a RIGHT to know what the law is, and how it will be applied, so that they can order their lives in a lawful manner.

'First, during the Mueller investigation, it was alleged that Trump violated the federal obstruction of justice statute. I, and others, countered that a criminal statute should only apply to the President if there is a "clear statement" to that effect. In other words, a general criminal statute should not be read to apply to the President.'

There isn't a Bribery Loophole for Bribed Joe

'Bribery is somewhat unique in that the Constitution expressly enumerates bribery as a ground of impeachment. It is difficult to then argue that the President has some sort of constitutional authority to engage in impeachable conduct.'

In fact, that's so obvious that it would take a real fool to argue otherwise.

'Where one public official act is traded for another public official act, there has not been any illegal conduct.'

'politicians never lose sight of the next election. Merely acting with an eye towards retaining office is not an improper purpose.'

'Kavanaugh stated, "this case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country." He is exactly right.'

'Kavanaugh asked John Sauer, Trump's counsel, if "a clear statement in the statute covering the president" is required "if the president's official acts are going to be criminalized." Kavanaugh later observed that "a clear statement in the statute referencing the president" was needed "so that the president is on notice and can conduct himself or herself accordingly." Another rationale for the clear statement rule, Kavanaugh explained, is "to make sure Congress has thought about" what it would mean to subject the President to criminal liability.'

The robed anti-Trump clown of the DC court weighed none of these issues. It's important for her to redo her work. How else will she learn not be be so sloppy?

 

'In logic, a tautology is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.'

An example is "x=y or x≠y".

'A less abstract example is "The ball is all green, or the ball is not all green". This is true regardless of the color of the ball.'

I appreciate your point, and I think it tracks nicely with Chief Justice Robert's point that the sloppy robed clown at the DC circuit wrote a decision based on a tautology and probably should be forced to try again.

Circular reasoning is where there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion.

I think Tautology is a tighter fit than Circular, but it's nothing I feel strongly enough about to argue over. Be well, Zorro.

 

Not lost (usually), just disagree with. Somebody who believes in democracy wouldn't want to give disproportionate power to voters in certain states. It's not a misunderstanding of how it works, it's disagreement.

Distinguishing between official and private acts does seem like a reasonable direction to go, as far as determining general principles for prosecuting a former president outside of impeachment.

 

When did Trump start teasing his intent to run? Link or didn't happen

I see nothing here that refutes my post.

 

nope. This exercise is going to continue until that man dies. Its not like he's going to stop these tactics after the election.

 

you've certainly got keen eyes. Thank you for that revelation.

 

I'm speaking in terms of reality, not your wishes.

It doesn't matter what I wish or don't wish, it's simply understanding the system that is in place.

 

The Supremes will aid and abet Trump's delaying tactics once again.

Let's hope so. Political prosecutions are a serious danger to the credibility of the justice system. It's good that someone is trying to defend that credibility.

 

The notion entertained by we progressives that the courts have held under the strain of unending pressure from Trumpery ended during the SC hearing. It was a notion based on things like the complete failing of Trumpery to find judges willing to allow his baseless claims of voter fraud to proceed. The idea, buoyed by numerous examples, that even Trump appointed judges remained true to the law. It began to falter with Aileen Cannon's abject hackery in Don's favor. Hackery for which she has been given a slap on the wrist by the 11th circuit.

What we have to come to grips with is the SC buckled on Thursday and with it an essential cog in our system of justice. The conservatives laid their cards on the table and they have Trump's face on them. Alito and Co went out of their way to make this case about something it's not about. Something the Roberts court has a habit of doing. They steadfastly refused to deal with the facts of the matter before them in a transparent desire to give Don what he wants. Not agreement with the claim of total immunity from the law but rather signaling a court willing to be compliant with whatever Trump needs it to be. Namely, a way out of accountability for the crimes he is charged with committing.

 

At least they didn't try to steal an election like your guy.

 

Why you would support a guy who tried to steal the 2020 election and then push the Big Lie about Democrats trying to do what he did boggles the mind. Didn't your mom tell you that you're known by the company you keep?

 

I know, and I find it to be such a shame. You claimed the timing of Trump deciding to run for office had nothing to do with his legal problems "materializing." But a few days after he announced his campaign the DoJ appointed Jack Smith. And one of the lead attorneys at the DoJ left his cushy leadership position to take a much lower and less senior position in NY to work on cases against Trump using novel theories of law. He is currently prosecuting his old boss's political opponent for what is widely considered ridiculous criminal charges in NY. And all of these cases were coordinated to kick off towards the tail end of the campaign while making literal demands of the judges to force a resolution to take place before the election. Facts hurt. Sometimes they hurt so much that denial is an expected outcome.

 

Trump's candidacy for prez serves two purposes for him. 1. It gives him the possibility of having all federal charges dropped if he wins. 2. It affords him the opportunity to characterize all investigations in to his criminal behavior as being motivated by politics.

If a person expected to be indicted for alleged crimes, and he wanted to create a narrative of being persecuted, what better way than to declare his candidacy and then claim the indictments he knew were coming are election interference?

 

Investigations, indictments, and preceding have always been political persecution against Trump. It's obvious to everyone, even you.

If the goal was only to try Trump for his alleged crimes, there wouldn't be any correlation between that effort and the election.

This thread alone, and your comments, prove what everybody already knows.

 

This would be more convincing if it were not posted in a thread whining about due process when the prosecutors are in front of the Supreme Court saying the district and appellate courts got their rulings on the defendant’s motions incorrect. As it stands, it comes off as hypocritical nonsense. The prosecution will not be using the lower court rulings to justify their position because even they admit the lower court rulings were baseless and got the law completely wrong. They were indefensible legal opinions against the Presidency. And it seems the sole purpose for them wasn’t to get the law correct, but to rush the trials against a presidential candidate they dislike to a verdict to coincide with the overt and public demands of the prosecution to interfere in the election. You have no problem with that due process violation, but you do have a problem with the Supreme Court correcting lower court rulings against a defendant (and future defendants) that even the prosecutors admit needs to be changed.

Ironically, these are the same arguments we had to correct when states were illegally removing Trump from the ballot and the court ruled 9-0 that your position was a threat to our democracy. It might be time for these critics to begin supporting our democracy and due process, it’s a really bad look to keep this nonsense going.

 

Except there isn't.