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

Those are civil trials.

 

I think corn Pop did a sufficient job of laying it out for you. It's completely undeniable

 

The democrats are setting this up as a "win" for the democrats. If the SC rules in favor of Trump, it is because the right leaning majority in the court ruled based on their bias. If the SC rules against Trump, it will because the SC made the right decision.

How about we just agree ahead of time, that they will make the right decision regardless of which way they rule?

 

His legal troubles materialized as soon as he started breaking the law.

 

Awwwwwww/

The crooks trying to fix the election in the courtroom rather than by convincing the voters that four more years of Bribed Joe will be better for them than returning to Trumpian prosperity with rising wages, no new wars, and secured borders, are seeing all their evil plans fall in a heap like Bribed Joe collapsing on stage?

 

Justice Barrett, of all people, exposed the sham this case is during her questioning. She methodically read Jack Smith's indictments against Trump, asking Trump's attorney if the actions described in the indictment represented official or private acts. Each time the attorney said private. That, as they say, is the ball game. Meaning Trump's attorney acknowledged that none of the charges against his client are official acts for which he may be entitled to immunity.

 

I've got a feeling that your "prediction" was based on something you read/heard from the "media". I read the same thing just a few minutes ago. And it makes sense. Of course you're attributing it to "conservative justices" and some sort of bias. But the fact of the matter is that a President has always been presumed to have some sort of immunity for PRESIDENTIAL ACTS. I have to stress that because leftists are trying to claim that the argument is about some sort of "complete immunity" for anything and everything while President. That is not, and never has been, the argument. As such the case was always going to come down to "Did Trumps actions constitute a Presidential Act? Or Personal Act?" I have stated this previously in other posts in the past. But it always seems to get ignored.

Why has a President always had a presumed immunity? Because a President has to commit acts that are not always considered "legal" when compared to civilians who do not have the weight of authority that a President has/needs. For instance there are times that a President has to order a "hit" on a person. Ex: Obama ordering the "hit" on Osama Bin Laden. Or when ANY President orders a strike on what is believed to be a terrorists base of operations and as a result innocent civilians are killed, also called "collateral damage". These are just obvious examples. There are many more situations that can, and no doubt does, arise which could be considered "illegal" for anyone but the President.

One example that has been used, and which lefties hollered about, was "If the President orders a hit on a political rival which results in the death of that political rival, does that President have immunity?". Leftists of course hollered "of course they don't!!!". Except that the answer to that isn't that simple. If it was done in furtherance of national security, (the rival was plotting a terrorist act in order to win the election by blaming the President for example) then yes, the President would be immune from prosecution. If it was done for personal reasons only (to win the election for example) then no, that President would not have immunity.

So yes, this question was always going to come down to "Does what Trump did fall under a "Presidential Act" or "Personal Act"?

 

So?

 

Trump didn't do even close to that.

 

I did not espouse any direction on what Trump did or did not do. What applies to him, and what doesn't. I'm simply talking about the case before SCOTUS atm. The part that you bolded applies to any and all Presidents. But you are of course welcome to your opinion.

 

I bet the Justices see this obvious case as an opportunity. Vote pro president and see their credibility completely eliminated or go with the obvious vote with some clarification and gain credibility.
8-1 Thomas is too ***** whipped to go with obvious reason. I wonder what she has on him?

 

So the rock it is?

 

Sorry, that's just reality. Here's another dose. He's seeking another term as a means to avoid accountability for the crimes he is charged with committing. Someone would have to be as sentient as a rock not to see the connection

 

A really interesting part of the questioning was when the government was defending Obama using drone strikes to kill Americans who were not on the battlefield and we're not an imminent threat. He didn't ask the courts or get permission from any other branch.

The government's attorney was asked directly if Obama could be prosecuted for killing Americans. His response?

No, because he says the system worked as intended. Obama's WH told him he was allowed to kill Americans who were not an active threat, but who they suspected were affiliated with bad people. So the WH deciding on its own that it can kill Americans is the check and balance. Assassinating Americans sleeping in their beds is what they called a "public authority exception." You can't make this up. Obama is immune from murder charges because his WH says so. We can't go back and second guess Obama's analysis because the checks and balances has already taken place. His administration decided for itself.

So if Obama is immune from murder charges is Trump immune from charges for political speech? No, because Biden's administration can second guess Trump's actions and they have an election they want to win.

This is the legal analysis on presidential immunity you have to agree with if you agree with the prosecution.

 

Truth!

What never ceases to amaze me is how this court's majority (except Barrett yesterday) did NOT want to consider the facts and reality but preferred to focus on the future and hypotheticals to carve out a situational immunity (a test) to delay and create a situation with the lower courts in the Jan 6th Trump case so, he and his attorneys could get into a multi year back and forth of appeals, delays and up and down to and from the higher courts including SCOTUS. That's not exercising the rule of law but abusing it and the oath they all took and the country that they serve. Best to be a cynic with this high court.

 

Nope. The only legal matter before the Court at question is whether Trump has immunity from the charges brought against him.

With that in mind, Amy Coney Barrett's questioning of Trump's attorney, John Sauer, was game over for Don. Or at least it should have been. Here's why.

As a starting point it should be noted attorneys from both sides of the immunity case, and all the justices, agree what has been referred to as private acts, not official ones, have no claim to immunity.

Barrett read the individual charges from the Jan. 6 case Jack Smith has brought, asking Sauer each time whether they constituted a private act or an official one. In every instance he acknowledged they were private acts, not part of Trump's official, Article II duties as prez. That, as they say, is the ballgame. Because as Justice Jackson pointed out, that is the question before the Court.

The question is decidedly not what most of the conservatives wanted to make it. An exploration of what constitutes a private and an official act. That is an intellectual exercise having nothing to do with the merits of this case since there is general agreement, even by Sauer, that the acts in question are not official in nature. Which makes the Court's willingness to hear the case yet another travesty ushered in by Trumpery.

 

That kind of tautological argument is exactly why the sloppy lower court will likely have to redo the illformed decision.

“Biden and his supporters are intent on making Trump the Nelson Mandela of America.”

"How 'The Nelson Mandela of America' Is Making Bank Off of His Criminal Trial/'I’m catching up on my ****ing sleep ’cause I’m bored,' Trump told one source"

'Prosecutor Chris Conroy made clear to the court that he was mindful of turning Trump into a MAGA martyr. “We are not yet seeking an incarceratory penalty,” he said, adding that Trump apparently wants to go to jail: “Defendant seems to be angling for that.”'

'Not yet. Ha ha. I guess Trump's seeming to angle for it is playing on his antagonists' mind. If he wants it, we'd better not want it, so if later, he seems not to want it, then we will be seeking it. '

On day, may the hounds be baying at their heels with them dealing with the same things they are throwing at Trump.

 

Nothing you said invalidates what I said.

 

Yes. You pointed out their tautological argument.

And the decision that looks like it is going to be remanded to the lower court, also used tautological reasoning, which is why it looks like the Court is going to make them redo it.

Clearly our law schools are not teaching students basic logic.

 

The lawyers opening statement says it ALL.
If they pursue Trump in this manner than past presidents are no longer off limits (and lots of them have much blood on their hands)
I almost want them to go full force on Trump so I can watch the chaos it creates when it starts happening to the left.
Either way, sounds like a win to me!

 

Conservatives on the Supreme Court are admitting they are political hacks and have no interest in discussing the facts of the case.

“I’m not concerned about this case so much as future ones, too” - Gorsuch
“I’m not focused on the here and now of this case; I’m very concerned about the future” - Kavanaugh
“I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case” - Alito

 

"The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine" mean anything to you?

 

Garland is awful. He's the worst AG since Nixon was in office. worse than Jan "the Man" Reno

 

LOL that's a complete nothing burger

 

It's quite possible Garland would never have named Smith as a SC to investigate Trump had the evidence revealed by the Jan. 6 House committee not compelled it.