The lawfare against Trump takes a new twist

[sealybobo]

McConnell was wrong.

So what?

Of course he was wrong. He should have convicted Trump so he couldn't run for President again.

 

[BackAgain]

Of course he was wrong. He should have convicted Trump so he couldn't run for President again.

No. He was wrong in thinking he had any ability to assign any responsibility to Trump. Dumbass.

 

[SavannahMann]

So what? If his motives include slow walking, don’t care. He’s the defendant and thus entitled to proceed as he sees fit.

Smith actually appears to have ulterior motives.

But as a baseline, if he wants to get an official “ok” to proceed with the trial (rather than go through it all only to then find out that Trump was right), I’m not at all concerned.

Bottom line is still this: there’s no reason to assume that the SCOTUS would have entertained the Trump motion anyway. There’s no need to rush it.

I don’t get it. You said Trump was being politically persecuted.

Judge sets absurd trial date for Trump case

They have managed to convince three grand juries that they are reasonable. Nope. They have, so far, convinced four grand juries that the evidence supports a finding that there is (supposedly) reasonable cause to believe that some “crimes” were committed.

www.usmessageboard.com

If that is true. Then the Supreme Court can end at least two of the cases against Trump right now. End the persecution. Just determine that Trump and all Presidents can’t be held criminally liable for any actions taken while in office.

Now if you honestly believe Trump is being politically persecuted as you said, this is great. If it is half as obvious as you claim it will all be over in a couple weeks and the Trump Campaign for President becomes more of a Victory Lap. It makes not only his nomination certain but his win in November all but certain.

So why the objection to finally getting the decision? Why the opposition to having the question decided once and for all?

 

[BackAgain]

I don’t get it. You said Trump was being politically persecuted.

Judge sets absurd trial date for Trump case

They have managed to convince three grand juries that they are reasonable. Nope. They have, so far, convinced four grand juries that the evidence supports a finding that there is (supposedly) reasonable cause to believe that some “crimes” were committed.

www.usmessageboard.com

If that is true. Then the Supreme Court can end at least two of the cases against Trump right now. End the persecution. Just determine that Trump and all Presidents can’t be held criminally liable for any actions taken while in office.

Now if you honestly believe Trump is being politically persecuted as you said, this is great. If it is half as obvious as you claim it will all be over in a couple weeks and the Trump Campaign for President becomes more of a Victory Lap. It makes not only his nomination certain but his win in November all but certain.

So why the objection to finally getting the decision? Why the opposition to having the question decided once and for all?

You don’t get much.

He is being politically persecuted.

What point were you so poorly hoping to try to make?

That it would be “better” to speed up the process on some of the Federal cases? Why? Why would that change anything. I don’t even assume that the SCOTUS will render any decision on the matter. But if they did, and if they declared that the federal cases need to be dismissed pre-trial, why should that necessarily impact the State cases?

 

[SavannahMann]

You don’t get much.

He is being politically persecuted.

What point were you so poorly hoping to try to make?

That it would be “better” to speed up the process on some of the Federal cases? Why? Why would that change anything. I don’t even assume that the SCOTUS will render any decision on the matter. But if they did, and if they declared that the federal cases need to be dismissed pre-trial, why should that necessarily impact the State cases?

In this case it would affect both the Election cases. In DC and in Georgia. The Judges in Georgia would have to acknowledge that Trump has immunity. It wouldn’t affect the Florida documents case. Because that took place after he left office.

I’ve read a thousand posts on this site of people wailing and railing about how unfair it is that Trump is charged. They want to shut down the Government to cut funding for the prosecutions. They want the Georgia Legislature to smack Fanni Willis down to school crossing guard. They want to end the Political Persecution.

Here you go. The Supremes can end it. But now everyone is furious that Jack Smith is going that route. I think I have a good answer as to why.

You know all the excuses are bullshit. It just gives you Trump Fanboys a chance to pretend to be victims. Everyone is out to get him and it’s not fair.

 

[BackAgain]

In this case it would affect both the Election cases. In DC and in Georgia. The Judges in Georgia would have to acknowledge that Trump has immunity. It wouldn’t affect the Florida documents case. Because that took place after he left office.

I’ve read a thousand posts on this site of people wailing and railing about how unfair it is that Trump is charged. They want to shut down the Government to cut funding for the prosecutions. They want the Georgia Legislature to smack Fanni Willis down to school crossing guard. They want to end the Political Persecution.

Here you go. The Supremes can end it. But now everyone is furious that Jack Smith is going that route. I think I have a good answer as to why.

You know all the excuses are bullshit. It just gives you Trump Fanboys a chance to pretend to be victims. Everyone is out to get him and it’s not fair.

I don’t agree with your analysis.

But that’s ok.

You’re just a hack anyway. I wasn’t expecting anything logical or factually supported from you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You moron. You actually believe that it has to use the words “advisory opinion” for it to essentially be seeking an advisory opinion.

Also, just to clarify another thing you have grave difficulty grappling with:

I don’t imagine that Trump’s legal team will seek to invoke the prohibition against advisory opinions. Why would they?

I anticipate that the SCOTUS will invoke it sua sponte.

Seek out the latest on Trump's team and He on the issue. You were wrong yet again.

Why is Jack Smith so worried about an election? Justice is blind, right?

Justice is also swift Justice delayed is justice denied Delaying the trial is just a desperate play by Trump and his supporters in hopes that he is elected President and thus will pardon himself. Which is not why the founding fathers gave the president that ability. Of course even if Trump...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

I’m shocked. Imagine asking the SCOTUS for what amounts to an advisory opinion.

Our courts don’t render advisory opinions. So, I expect the SCOTUS to take a pass on accepting the Special Persecutor’s “motion.” But, even so, maybe the guy is finally starting to dimly grasp that what he’s doing is improper.

Don't quit your day job Nostradamus:

Donald Trump rages at Supreme Court granting Jack Smith's wish

Special Counsel Jack Smith's request to the Supreme Court to review Donald Trump's immunity has provoked an angry response from the former president.

www.newsweek.com

Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look at whether the former president can be criminally charged.
A spokesperson for Trump accused Smith of interfering with the 2024 election, branded him President Joe Biden's "henchman" and said Smith had launched a "Hail Mary" after he filed a request to the Supreme Court to review if the 45th president is immune from federal prosecution regarding alleged crimes committed while he was in office.
The statement said: "As President Trump has said over and over again, this prosecution is completely politically motivated… There is absolutely no reason to rush this Witch Hunt to trial, except to injure President Trump and his 150 million, at least, supporters."

Any delays could mean the trial is still outstanding after the 2024 presidential election in which Trump is expected to be the Republican candidate. The Supreme Court has said Trump now has until 4 p.m. on December 20 to file a response.
"This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin," Smith wrote.

A bypass could mean the March 4 trial date previously set could still go ahead, avoiding delays caused by Trump's appeals.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i am shocked. you know this supreme court is corrupt, don't you? they will decide whatever harlan crowe and the federalist society want/

What makes them corrupt? Oh that's right it's not a leftist court. It's a court that makes judgements by the constitution and not pull shit from the ass and see if it sticks rulings

 

[BackAgain]

Seek out the latest on Trump's team and He on the issue. You were wrong yet again.

Why is Jack Smith so worried about an election? Justice is blind, right?

Justice is also swift Justice delayed is justice denied Delaying the trial is just a desperate play by Trump and his supporters in hopes that he is elected President and thus will pardon himself. Which is not why the founding fathers gave the president that ability. Of course even if Trump...

www.usmessageboard.com

No. You just lack the first clue on how to figure out what’s happening.

 

[BackAgain]

Don't quit your day job Nostradamus:

Donald Trump rages at Supreme Court granting Jack Smith's wish

Special Counsel Jack Smith's request to the Supreme Court to review Donald Trump's immunity has provoked an angry response from the former president.

www.newsweek.com

Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look at whether the former president can be criminally charged.
A spokesperson for Trump accused Smith of interfering with the 2024 election, branded him President Joe Biden's "henchman" and said Smith had launched a "Hail Mary" after he filed a request to the Supreme Court to review if the 45th president is immune from federal prosecution regarding alleged crimes committed while he was in office.
The statement said: "As President Trump has said over and over again, this prosecution is completely politically motivated… There is absolutely no reason to rush this Witch Hunt to trial, except to injure President Trump and his 150 million, at least, supporters."

Any delays could mean the trial is still outstanding after the 2024 presidential election in which Trump is expected to be the Republican candidate. The Supreme Court has said Trump now has until 4 p.m. on December 20 to file a response.
"This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin," Smith wrote.

A bypass could mean the March 4 trial date previously set could still go ahead, avoiding delays caused by Trump's appeals.

Yo uh make no sense. Maybe that’s why your pet name on the short bus was:

“Dumber than the rest.”

I stand by my speculation. I don’t care what the Special Persecutor is asking for. Don’t care what the Trump legal team reply is. I don’t even care that the SCOTUS has agreed to consider the motion. (It doesn’t mean they will grant it, you fucking imbecile.)

Frankly, although I’d be surprised if the SCOTUS ultimately makes any pre-trial ruling which would amount to an advisory opinion. It would be a legal mistake, but it wouldn’t phase me.

What does matter — in the long run — is the outcome of the various cases. Assuming convictions, even the verdicts don’t matter anywhere near as much as the appeals.

Let me boil it down to a font and some rudimentary words even you might be able to comprehend. Fuck off.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No. You just lack the first clue on how to figure out what’s happening.

Like Trump, you double down when caught red handed. That's not a compliment.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yo uh make no sense. Maybe that’s why your pet name on the short bus was:

“Dumber than the rest.”

I stand by my speculation. I don’t care what the Special Persecutor is asking for. Don’t care what the Trump legal team reply is. I don’t even care that the SCOTUS has agreed to consider the motion. (It doesn’t mean they will grant it, you fucking imbecile.)

Frankly, although I’d be surprised if the SCOTUS ultimately makes any pre-trial ruling which would amount to an advisory opinion. It would be a legal mistake, but it wouldn’t phase me.

What does matter — in the long run — is the outcome of the various cases. Assuming convictions, even the verdicts don’t matter anywhere near as much as the appeals.

Let me boil it down to a font and some rudimentary words even you might be able to comprehend. Fuck off.

Right.
You don't care.

okay

 

[BackAgain]

Like Trump, you double down when caught red handed. That's not a compliment.

False. Your lies don’t control. I haven’t been “caught” because I haven’t tried to run from anything.

Plus, of course, it helps that I’m right.

You’re a dope. That’s also not a compliment.

 

[BackAgain]

Right.
You don't care.

okay

Right. I don’t.

You care enormously.

That, too, doesn’t matter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

False. Your lies don’t control. I haven’t been “caught” because I haven’t tried to run from anything.

Plus, of course, it helps that I’m right.

You’re a dope. That’s also not a compliment.

"Our courts don’t render advisory opinions. So, I expect the SCOTUS to take a pass on accepting the Special Persecutor’s “motion.”" -- OP

"But again, I suspect that however...Smith chooses to disingenuously “frame the issue” for the SCOTUS, the Court will see it for what it is: a request for an advisory opinion. Thus, they will decline to accept the filing and won’t rule one way or the other at this time." -- OP

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Candycorn is in way over her pinhead again.

Look, you Commie Canuck fuck, it’s clear that you’re a brainless hack and your mission was to deflect. Ya got me. I failed to edit. But I’m not making any excuses, as you know. It’s not difficult to admit a screw up unless you’re a libturd like you.

The topic remains the topic despite your transparent trollish pathetic deflection efforts.

Is there something about this topic that frightens the commie Canuck fucking duck?

Suck a hobo’s dick and give him a small donation.

You aren’t capable of talking with adults.

I already explained things to you.

I am not responsible for your inability to understand. You’re a condescending little priss, but your ignorance is spectacular.

False, of course. But at least you highlight your mental retardation.

They didn’t grant the motion, you ignorant twat.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No. XX-XX
In the Supreme Court of the United States
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BEFORE JUDGMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ No. 23- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. DONALD J. TRUMP _______________ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT _______________ MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING ON THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT AND FOR EXPEDITED MERITS BRIEFING IF THE COURT GRANTS THE PETITION


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
______________
No. 23-3228
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant-Appellant
______________
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION
FOR EXPEDITED APPELLATE REVIEW

Where oh where is there an asking for an advisory opinion?

Special Counsel Jack Smith Petitions the Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s Immunity Defense

Smith also filed a motion for expedited review in the D.C. Circuit to prevent delay of Trump’s Jan. 6 trial

www.lawfaremedia.org

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24213189/usa-motion-to-expedite.pdf

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24213180/20231211115417267_no-23-624-us-v-donald-j-trump-petition.pdf

Where oh where is there an asking for an advisory opinion?

advisory opinion​

Primary tabs​

An advisory opinion is a court's nonbinding interpretation of law. It states the opinion of a court upon a legal question submitted by a legislature, government official, or another court. Parties seeking advisory opinions tend to do so to better understand their odds of winning a potential lawsuit before risking the expensive process of litigation.
Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions because of the Constitution's case-or-controversy requirement.
State courts are not subject to the Constitution’s case or controversy requirement and are therefore free to issue advisory opinions so long as their state constitutions allow. See, for example, the advisory opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding civil unions.

advisory opinion

www.law.cornell.edu

again...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Example of an advisory opinion:

Where oh where is Jack Smith asking for an advisory opinion? Can anyboy find it? Does it exist?

OPINIONS OF THE JUSTICES TO THE SENATE, 440 Mass. 1201

masscases.com

On February 3, 2004, the Justices submitted the following answer to a question propounded to them by the Senate.

To the Honorable the Senate of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit their answers to the question set forth in an order adopted by the Senate on December 11, 2003, and transmitted to the Justices on December 12, 2003. The order indicates that there is pending before the General Court a bill, Senate No. 2175, entitled "An Act relative to civil unions." A copy of the bill was transmitted with the order. As we describe more fully below, the bill adds G. L. c. 207A to the General Laws, which provides for the establishment of "civil unions" for same-sex "spouses," provided the individuals meet certain qualifications described in the bill. [Note 1]

The order indicates that grave doubt exists as to the constitutionality of the bill if enacted into law and requests the opinions of the Justices on the following "important question of law":

"Does Senate, No. 2175, which prohibits same-sex couples from entering into marriage...

and again...

 

[airplanemechanic]

And you guys deep down know I'm right. You even know Bush lied us into Iraq. Trump said it and you voted for him.

Because I vote for someone means I agree with EVERYTHING they say? You think if a republican says one thing I disagree with I'm going to vote for the democrat?

Um no, fuckhead, I won't. Because I disagree with EVERYTHING the fucking democrat says.