February 28, 2024
"The Supreme Court will review Donald Trump’s unprecedented claim that he is shielded from prosecution for actions taken while in office...."
"The justices set argument for the week of April 22 to consider a unanimous ruling from a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.... Trump’s pretrial proceedings in D.C. will remain on hold until a ruling is issued, putting the Supreme Court in the politically fraught position of influencing the timing of a federal election-obstruction trial for the leading Republican presidential candidate...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
61 comments:
Unpossible- I was assured by many great legal minds that there was no way SCOTUS would review the DC Appeals court's brilliant decision!
Should Trump lose the immunity case, a creative red state DA should charge Biden with accessory to murder in an illegal immigrant murder case. Many to choose from.
"putting the Supreme Court in the politically fraught position of influencing the timing of a federal election-obstruction trial for the leading Republican presidential candidate...."
No, it isn't accepting the case that would put the Court in a fraught position, it's the ruling below that does that, and the Court would be in the same "politically fraught position of influencing the timing" of the case if it refused or delayed the appeal.
There are consequences to the Democrats' "lawfare" against Trump.
Trump just made a similar motion in his Florida case, which I don't understand since all the alleged conduct took place after he left office.
I think WaPo is a more frightened position than SCOTUS.
It’s an unprecedented claim because it’s an unprecedented indictment.
I wonder if the Supreme Court wants to be seen as dictating to a political party who its candidate may be? Even in the depths of the Cold War the CPUSA could select its own candidates without court supervision.
No trip to Subway today for Jackie “Blue” Smith.
I suspect Obama is hoping Trump wins his case: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/28/obamas_cia_asked_foreign_intel_agencies_to_spy_on_trump_campaign_150565.html
Hey another one us casual observers predicted the court would take! Old Trump-hating often-banned commenter LLR C**ck is now -- what -- o for 20 on his "predictions about Trump. Great legal education he got up there in MI.
WaPo just can't help loading up on the hair-on-fire language. Fraught! It's a fraught position. That means one "likely to result in an undesirable outcome." Wow WaPo, are you fucking worried your evil plans -- I mean the Democrats evil plans -- are falling apart? Is that an editorial position? Is this that thing wordsmith was warning is "just journalism" merely a day or so ago?
My my it seems like the WaPo writers must be peeing their pants...or skirts. Whatever. Could it be accepting the case indicates they aren't simply letting the lower court ruling (a gross error reversing 240 years of executive privilege) stand? Hmmm.
i was hoping the SCOTUS would delay this till June or July. Evidently, they have to appear Non-partisan and objective, while the Court of Appeals was neither, skyrocketing their review of the case to the top of their docket, so they could GET TRUMP.
As usual, we know there will be 4 votes against Trump to start out with. I assume they will find a fifth vote to give the POTUS some immunity while allowing the current cases against Trump to go forward.
"he is shielded from prosecution for actions taken while in office...."
Doesn't he have to be shielded?
Again, the WaPo is so biased. If this was a Democrat pol, they wouldn't mention it was "Unanimous" or they would call it the "republican or conservative dominated court of appeals panel". whenever the Wapo doesn't like a judicial decision they make sure you know everyone's name and their party affiliation.
If they like it, then its "Unanimous Court of Appeals" or the "DC Court of Appeals". If the House or the Senate pass a bill and the WaPO likes it, then its just the plain senate or house. And if they get even ONE Republican they call it "Bi partisan". If they don't like it then its "Republican House passes bill".
Or "Conservative coilition ignores pleas of reasonable people and widows and orphans and passes draconian legislation that some say will..."
The same Supreme Court that refused to rule on the same issue in the same case when Jack Smith asked them.
3 months ago.
Fine. If not heard and resolved timely, the federal district court trial may get held over to after the election. The timing is going to be delayed; the eventual outcome will remain unchanged. Most likely the American voters are going to reelect Biden and after the election Trump will go to trial, the evidence and arguments will be hard and decided, and most likely Trump will be convicted — and appeals from this judgment will fail and Biden will pardon him or he will go into federal detention.
Georgia could charge Biden as an accessories to murder for the illegal immigrant murder IF the immigrant either entered the US during the Biden administration or the administration had a change to remove him and didn’t. I’d say charge him right now and put the pressure on SCOTUS to see what the future of presidential prosecutions will be.
"Trump just made a similar motion in his Florida case, which I don't understand since all the alleged conduct took place after he left office."
When were the files at issue ordered taken to Florida?
Is it a requirement to be as self aware as a three year old to work at WaPo?
SCOTUS should not decide the case until July.
“…putting the Supreme Court in the politically fraught position of influencing the timing of a federal election-obstruction trial for the leading Republican presidential candidate...."”
Never mind that these allegations could have been made two years ago.
The left's insane hatred of Trump - has turned all (most, anyway) democrxats into people who will believe any lie fed to them.
De-fund the police = 100% leftwing
Open-border = 100% leftwing
What's unprecedented is not just the immunity claim--it's the way the Dims have been waging lawfare against the Bad Orange Man. And not only should Obama be hoping that The Don wins this case--the current Resident in the Oval Office should be hoping as well. Because otherwise some red state prosecuting posse will be going after him for failure to perform his du ties as President.
Is it unprecedented? Sovereign immunity has been all the rage in Washington for centuries. But it’s unprecedented because Trump wants a piece of that action.
"Blogger Humperdink said...
Should Trump lose the immunity case, a creative red state DA should charge Biden with accessory to murder in an illegal immigrant murder case. Many to choose from.
2/28/24, 4:39 PM"
Bull....It should be done NOW. The only real way to get someones attention who has no skin in the game is to get some of their skin in the game. Get the grand jury together NOW and charge him. I mean, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
Anyway, if a President can try to use fraud and incite violence to overturn an election, get re-elected anyway by people who are fine with that, and use re-election to nullify the case against him, at what point do he and his supporters lose the expectation of being protected by the rule of law?
I knew I should have purchased popcorn future when I had a chance.
readering said...
"Trump just made a similar motion in his Florida case, which I don't understand since all the alleged conduct took place after he left office."
Yeah. The Biden classified documents decision kinda makes the Florida case moot.
LLR-democratical Rich: "Anyway, if a President can try to use fraud and incite violence to overturn an election, get re-elected anyway by people who are fine with that, and use re-election to nullify the case against him, at what point do he and his supporters lose the expectation of being protected by the rule of law?"
LOLxInfinity!!!!!!!
Try harder Rich, lest C**** decide he needs to go back to the LLR-democratical bullpen for ANOTHER reliever after lonejustice's failure!
Remember Althousians, you can't follow the game without a program!
Sour grapes breath LLR-democratical Rich: "...the evidence and arguments will be hard and decided, and most likely Trump will be convicted...:
The "Walls Are Closing In"TM...but from further away!
Rich, I am sorry, but when did Trump incite violence? Be specific you lying sack of shit.
at what point do he and his supporters lose the expectation of being protected by the rule of law?
Gee, Rich. That sounds like a threat.
At what point do you think we're no longer going to put up with your shit? Hmmm?
I don’t see an end to the current plague of lawfare. Not until they lose each and every case under appeal and they are judged poor lawyers by their peers. Even then the greedier ones will continue to post record “bilkable hours.”
Biden is currently above the law as shown repeatedly. Others are not so fortunate, for example Michael Byrd, the coward who shot Ashley Babbitt in cold blood and then hid his identity for months and months. Byrd is someone who deserves career-destroying judgement.
Rich - A few people rioted on Jan 6th. Trump never told anyone to riot. Some idiots were stupid enough to let the Feds trick them into doing it.
An insurrection takes planning and weapons. Insurrection is a word the left used - it's not accurate.
Biden's DOJ made sure innocent people are jailed for decades - and all they did was walk peacefully into he capitol to take a photo.
What are you - some sort of totalitarian fascist?
“Open-border = 100% leftwing”
No it’s also supported by the Koch-fiend GOPe who profit from depressed wages.
readering said...
Trump just made a similar motion in his Florida case, which I don't understand since all the alleged conduct took place after he left office.
***********
Didn't Trump declare the docs he took to be either personal property or "unclassified" during his term in office as CINC?
why did the corruptocrats wait until right before 2024 election to go after Trump with their corrupt lawfare?
Most of this stuff happened in 2019-2020.
hmmm -
Chick said...
"Biden is currently above the law as shown repeatedly. Others are not so fortunate, for example Michael Byrd, the coward who shot Ashley Babbitt in cold blood and then hid his identity for months and months. Byrd is someone who deserves career-destroying judgement. "
To the vile putrid left- a Trump supporter was killed. They hold Byrd up as a hero.
It may prove very useful to the prosecution to get an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court before trial. I imagine they will issue a ruling defining which acts a President can and cannot be prosecuted for, which will enable the prosecution to shape the presentation of its case to that opinion, result in jury instructions that will stand a much, much better chance of holding up on appeal, and in the event of conviction greatly reduce the chances of Trump being able to get a new trial on appeal.
Point and laugh at the insane leftists on MSDNC
What is Trump going to prison for?
Oh right - defeating Hillary. Or was it the phone call where he asked about Biden's Ukraine corruption? or was it the uh - oh yeah - how he raped E Jean - but there is zero evidence... or perhaps he's going to jail because some of his fans stupidly rioted with the feds on Jan 6th? Even Tho Trump said he wanted peaceful demonstration. (All while BLM and antifa rioting and arson were A-OK for the collective left) (w/ antifa bail money from Kamala) or is it that he dared to question the 2020 election results ? We guess only democrats are allowed to talk about "stolen elections" ? must be....
FU - Rachel Maddow.
Tho I do love it when Rachel looks like she is going to burst into tears.
“Trump just made a similar motion in his Florida case, which I don't understand since all the alleged conduct took place after he left office.”
“When were the files at issue ordered taken to Florida?”
That’s exactly right. The prosecution asserts that Trump mishandled and misappropriated highly classified documents. And, yes, documents marked as classified were found by the FBI during their illegally predicated MAL raid. But how did the documents get to Trump’s MAL home in FL? He ordered GSA to ship them there, while he was still President. That was, essentially, the actus reus of the crime. That was also the time when Trump arguably implicitly declassified the documents.
It makes some sense for the Supreme Court to hear this issue first for the DC case against Trump. There, the question is immunity for actions taken outside his job as President. In the FL case, the immunity question involves official, and not political, actions. If the Court finds Trump has immunity for political, non official, acts while President, the question about immunity for official acts has, essentially, alr3ady been answered.
The comments are insane over at NYT. The issue of immunity needs to be fleshed out . Trump was President and his actions were legal as far as I can see. There was no insurrection, just a riot. The immunity case applies to Biden also since he is under investigation for bribery and will not be convicted in the Senate.
If I were asked to solve this issue, the problem I would have is the definition of the contours of the immunity. Every hypothetical application would have to be applied to both right and left wing presidents.
What is the scope of presidential authority?
Is the immunity, if it exists, both civil and criminal?
Is there an element of bad intent needed to defeat immunity?
And why is it that it took us 235 years as a constitutional republic to reach this issue? Is it because Trump is such a rare bird, rarer than Halley's Comet by a wide margin, or is it because some people have now achieved a nearly monopolistic control of the public square that has given them unprecedented success in stoking hatred of the political opposition?
Rich said...
Anyway, if a President can try to use fraud and incite violence to overturn an election, get re-elected anyway by people who are fine with that, and use re-election to nullify the case against him, at what point do he and his supporters lose the expectation of being protected by the rule of law?
2/28/24, 6:37 PM
YOU tell us Biden supporter. Everything you said above could be said about Biden too. Better watch out for those F-15's and nukes....
The same Supreme Court that refused to rule on the same issue in the same case when Jack Smith asked them.
3 months ago.
That was the MSNBC take. Libs are going insane about the timing. See also the WaPo.
influencing the timing
This obsession with the timing of the appeal is a heads up that this is a political arrest, political indictment, and political prosecution. The whole damn thing is designed to keep Trump out of office in 2024. That's why none of this shit happened in 2021 or 2022. They waited until the election was upon us. And now they are whining in public about how their timing plans are upset.
Who gives a shit if a criminal trial is before an election or after an election? Answer: political thugs trying to control an election. The more you whine about the timing of the trial, the more you give your game away.
Morons who want to appeal to the Supreme Court right away might want to read the room. It's you fuckers who are out of order. At least pretend like this is a genuine criminal case, okay? Republicans know it's a sham. What's bizarre is that Democrats know it's a sham, and you don't care.
“This obsession with the timing of the appeal is a heads up that this is a political arrest, political indictment, and political prosecution. The whole damn thing is designed to keep Trump out of office in 2024. That's why none of this shit happened in 2021 or 2022. They waited until the election was upon us. And now they are whining in public about how their timing plans are upset.”
Exactly. The (supposed - see Trump’s 1st motion) Special Counsel tried to get both of his two trials in March, almost at the same time, for maximum interference with Super Tuesday. It looked at one point that they would have had Trump jetting back and forth between FL and DC for that entire month. Both cases were put on hold in order to resolve the immunity issue. The DC trial was tentatively rescheduled to start in May, and the FL case in June. Now it looks like they won’t start before at least fall.
The significance of the 1st motion (of 4 filed last Sat in FL) is that it attacks the Special Prosecutor in two ways. First, Jack Smith is not a US Attorney (as Mueller wasn’t, but the rest, including Hur, Durham, et Al were). That means that he is not an Officer, and esp not a Principal Officer, under the Constitution, which requires Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. He has no independent authority to indict and try cases. The only way that he can plausibly legally try these cases is as an employee reporting directly to AG Garland, who appointed him. The AG is #7 in the line of succession to the Presidency, and #4 in seniority as member of the President’s Cabinet. Reporting directly to FJB’s top attorney (the AG) in an election year makes clear that these two cases are blatant election interference by the incumbent during an election year.
The second part of that motion dovetails into this. Smith’s two cases against Trump are being funded off the books, and outside the DOJ budget, and instead funded through an off budget fund for Independent Prosecutors. If he isn’t Independent, but instead reports directly to the AG, this would probably be considered spending money not allocated by Congress. Which, of course is illegal (and possibly vulnerable to Qui Tam suits for recovery).
So, they have an illegally funded illegal prosecution of the President’s most likely opponent during a Presidential election year.
Comrade Drago, I know you're working the late shift, but please collect only one beet from the bin. Sustandard work.
This could be a landmark in US history.
Personally, I side with Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson who said it was “paradoxical” to argue that Trump’s “constitutional duty” to ensure that laws be followed “allows him to violate” criminal law."
If SCOTUS grants immunity without watertight reasoning, the reputation of the court will be stained indelibly.
SCOTUS framed the issue as immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts; not for murdering someone on Pennsylvania AV.
Trump will win. His actions on January 6 were part of his official duties as President.
MSNBC hosts will have nervous breakdowns.
Rich
Read what Bruce Hayden wrote about the timeline and legality of the MAL raid. Which are the facts. Every time you post here it's heads up for the everyone else to get ready for some far left progressive nonsense. And not very creative progressive nonsense either.
That which was always assumed to be true must now be litigated because orange man bad.
Rich - why is Jack Smith so special? He's a Biden plant?
The Supreme Court answers to both sides of these law suits. Not just one asshole on the corrupt left.
Rusty wrote about Rich: “Every time you post here it's heads up for the everyone else to get ready for some far left progressive nonsense. And not very creative progressive nonsense either.”
That’s funny because Rich prides himself above all else on his prose. Maybe if he weren’t trying so hard to tow a barge line of bile, his style would come through better.
LLR-democratical Rich: "If SCOTUS grants immunity without watertight reasoning, the reputation of the court will be stained indelibly."
Leftist calls for legal "watertight reasoning"!
In 2024...as if the last 60 years, and the last 8 years in particular, never happened!
LOL
Hilarious!
“why is Jack Smith so special?”
Smith released a narrow set of indictments specifically to get the cases tried before the election so the American people could understand Trump’s perfidy before they voted.
What perfidity is that, Rich? Be factual. Be concise.
“Smith released a narrow set of indictments specifically to get the cases tried before the election so the American people could understand Trump’s perfidy before they voted.”
In other words, you are admitting that the purpose of the trials is to interfere with this coming November’s election. The proximity to Super Tuesday for scheduling both of his two trials in March is explained by that admission of yours. If Smith had had his way, Trump would have spent the month shuttling back and forth between DC and FL, with no rest and no time to campaign.
But, no, neither case was narrowly tailored. Rather, both were constructed using the LawFare template, creating crimes where none exist, through skillful misinterpretations of criminal statutes to create supposed crimes where none exist. And, thus, violate DOJ policies, as well as likely ultimately being dismissed for violating Trump’s Due Process rights. The DC case attempts to criminalize speech protected by the 1st Amdt. The FL case attempts to criminalize his possession of declassified documents that he rightfully had in his possession. Kinda hypocritical, since both of his Dem opponents had classified documents in their possession that neither had the legal right to possess. That these cases are intentional election interference on his part, as well as by AG Garland and the FJB WH, is obvious from how he was appointed - personally by Garland, as an employee, and not as a Principal Officer, with an independent power to indict and try cases.
"Unpossible- I was assured by many great legal minds that there was no way SCOTUS would review the DC Appeals court's brilliant decision!"
When you have a SC that is heavily weighted to the right, legal miracles are possible! It's the "butcher's move," also known as the "finger on the scales maneuver."
6 hours later.
I hope he hasn't been posting all this while at work at his taxpayer funded job. Maybe that's why he hasn't gotten back to us.
Post a Comment