Jack Smith Seeks Supreme Court To Review To Keep Trump Criminal Case Moving Toward March Trial.

[BackAgain]

Federal judges believed there is. Grand juries belive it too. You have not seen what they have, have you? Neither have I but I go with what we do factually know .. Trump is out on bail and is facing multiple trials.

Trump's claims of absolute immunity are defense tactics being used to try and stall outcomes, so he can pardon himself -- and that will go to courts too, if it comes about.

The fact remains. The claims made by (I’ll limit this to the two cases being handled by Special Persecutor Smith for now) the government in its indictments are strained nonsense.

A grand jury can hear “evidence” and be misadvised by the Prosecution as to what the “law” says. They can then accuse. But the accusation is only as valid as the legal instructions they had received. This, an indictment isn’t evidence of anything.

Courts, of course, do review indictments which grand juries have handed up. But courts approving the validity of charges in a voted indictment only pass upon a limited set of questions. The problem is that even if they give the indictments approval (meaning a trial is then allowed to take place), their rulings may or may not be legally sound. The remedy for judicial error at that stage is two-fold: (1) the trial itself and (2) the appellate process in the event of a conviction.

So, barring an unexpected SCOTUS decision to advise the Special Persecutor that he may not proceed, these cases will have to go to trial. And, assuming a conviction or two, they will finally get reviewed for the legal validity or invalidity of the charges.

The discussion about the nature of the criminal charges is redundant here. You maintain that the “evidence” is clear and you already decided that Trump is “guilty.” I maintain that the “evidence” is not evidence of any criminality whatsoever. I maintain that the indictments don’t spell out any crimes at all by Trump.

I’m not sure what purpose is served by rehashing all of that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The fact remains. The claims made by (I’ll limit this to the two cases being handled by Special Persecutor Smith for now) the government in its indictments are strained nonsense.

A grand jury can hear “evidence” and be misadvised by the Prosecution as to what the “law” says. They can then accuse. But the accusation is only as valid as the legal instructions they had received. This, an indictment isn’t evidence of anything.

Courts, of course, do review indictments which grand juries have handed up. But courts approving the validity of charges in a voted indictment only pass upon a limited set of questions. The problem is that even if they give the indictments approval (meaning a trial is then allowed to take place), their rulings may or may not be legally sound. The remedy for judicial error at that stage is two-fold: (1) the trial itself and (2) the appellate process in the event of a conviction.

So, barring an unexpected SCOTUS decision to advise the Special Persecutor that he may not proceed, these cases will have to go to trial. And, assuming a conviction or two, they will finally get reviewed for the legal validity or invalidity of the charges.

The discussion about the nature of the criminal charges is redundant here. You maintain that the “evidence” is clear and you already decided that Trump is “guilty.” I maintain that the “evidence” is not evidence of any criminality whatsoever. I maintain that the indictments don’t spell out any crimes at all by Trump.

I’m not sure what purpose is served by rehashing all of that.

"strained nonsense?" That is not fact. Many legals scholars with no dog in the hunt disagree with your opinion posing as fact.
Mr. Trump and his team are worried. They dance around the charges, making political statements as if they are legal arguments.

We know for a fact Mr. Trump defied subpoenas and engaged in obstruction.

I also believe guilty people can go free.

 

[0311]

Why do you use P01135809? I know what it is referring to, but...

Why?

That is the booking number he was given when he appeared for his booking process in Georgia. It is in fact his inmate number.

 

[BackAgain]

"strained nonsense?" That is not fact. Many legals scholars with no dog in the hunt disagree with your opinion posing as fact.
Mr. Trump and his team are worried. They dance around the charges, making political statements as if they are legal arguments.

We know for a fact Mr. Trump defied subpoenas and engaged in obstruction.

I also believe guilty people can go free.

It is strained nonsense. Am I required to defer to the legal opinions of others?

No. Just as some of them are free not to defer to mine.

And we don’t know for a fact that President Trump defied subpoenas or engaged in any of obstruction. You believe it. That’s not the same thing.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is strained nonsense. Am I required to defer to the legal opinions of others?

No. Just as some of them are free not to defer to mine.

And we don’t know for a fact that President Trump defied subpoenas or engaged in any of obstruction. You believe it. That’s not the same thing.

Many legals scholars with no dog in the hunt disagree with your opinion posing as fact.
Mr. Trump and his team are worried. They dance around the charges, making political statements as if they are legal arguments.

We know for a fact Mr. Trump defied subpoenas and engaged in obstruction.

 

[0311]

Many legals scholars with no dog in the hunt disagree with your opinion posing as fact.
Mr. Trump and his team are worried. They dance around the charges, making political statements as if they are legal arguments.

We know for a fact Mr. Trump defied subpoenas and engaged in obstruction.

Constant and unrelenting Obstruction. Just look at the classifed docs at Shit-A-Lago. He fought every inch of the way. As opposed President Biden who cooperated the DOJ after his staff classified docs in his Delaware residence.

 

[Lakhota]

Has SCOTUS ruled on this yet?

 

[BackAgain]

Many legals scholars with no dog in the hunt disagree with your opinion posing as fact.
Mr. Trump and his team are worried. They dance around the charges, making political statements as if they are legal arguments.

We know for a fact Mr. Trump defied subpoenas and engaged in obstruction.

A matter indifference.

The question is not whether others agree with me or not. The question is whether I’m right.

And we absolutely do it know as a fact or otherwise that President Trump “defied” any subpoenas or engaged in any obstruction. You assume it. But that’s just you being wrong again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A matter indifference.

The question is not whether others agree with me or not. The question is whether I’m right.

And we absolutely do it know as a fact or otherwise that President Trump “defied” any subpoenas or engaged in any obstruction. You assume it. But that’s just you being wrong again.

Trump's own lawyers had much to say on this. I guess again, everyone but Trump is lying. Cult-of-Personality rules.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump's own lawyers had much to say on this. I guess again, everyone but Trump is lying. Cult-of-Personality rules.

It has not a thing to do with “lying.” Your reliance on hyperbole is revealing.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Update!

This is desperation by Jack Smith

Have you ever once had a thought that wasn't fed to you by someone on Twitter?

 

[0311]

Have you ever once had a thought that wasn't fed to you by someone on Twitter?

Thinking is NOT exactly a MAGA strong point.

 

[Arlette]

OR Smith is hoping the SCOTUS throws the whole thing out so he can save face and shut it down.

No. They are looking at it. Just heard it on the tv

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Jack Smith has had too many corn cobs up his rear end. It's pretty obvious he does not want Trump to become President again.

 

[Arlette]

Nonsense. His motivation is to dispute the false claims against him.

And they are false claims.

Nope. Trump is trying the ol Nixon dance. If a president does it, it's not a crime.

 

[0311]

The Supereme Court Agees To Expidite Consideration of Trump Immunity For DC Case.

Supreme Court agrees to expedite consideration of petition on Trump immunity for DC case

The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite consideration of a petition by special counsel Jack Smith on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from being prosecuted for crimes related to his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite consideration of a petition by special counsel Jack Smith on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from being prosecuted for crimes related to his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

The high court issued the order Monday afternoon, hours after Smith had filed a petition asking the court to take up the appeal. The court ordered that Trump file a response to the petition by 4 p.m. on Dec. 20.

 

[Clipper]

It’s an effort (as I noted in my own thread a while ago) to seek an advisory opinion.

Our courts don’t offer advisory opinions.

I suspect that this is just a cheap smoke screen effort by the Special Persecutor.

Why sure! Smith is putting the whole deal on the line to put up a "smoke screen".

Ask your shrink to up your meds, BOZO.

 

[Clipper]

The fact remains. The claims made by (I’ll limit this to the two cases being handled by Special Persecutor Smith for now) the government in its indictments are strained nonsense.

A grand jury can hear “evidence” and be misadvised by the Prosecution as to what the “law” says. They can then accuse. But the accusation is only as valid as the legal instructions they had received. This, an indictment isn’t evidence of anything.

Courts, of course, do review indictments which grand juries have handed up. But courts approving the validity of charges in a voted indictment only pass upon a limited set of questions. The problem is that even if they give the indictments approval (meaning a trial is then allowed to take place), their rulings may or may not be legally sound. The remedy for judicial error at that stage is two-fold: (1) the trial itself and (2) the appellate process in the event of a conviction.

So, barring an unexpected SCOTUS decision to advise the Special Persecutor that he may not proceed, these cases will have to go to trial. And, assuming a conviction or two, they will finally get reviewed for the legal validity or invalidity of the charges.

The discussion about the nature of the criminal charges is redundant here. You maintain that the “evidence” is clear and you already decided that Trump is “guilty.” I maintain that the “evidence” is not evidence of any criminality whatsoever. I maintain that the indictments don’t spell out any crimes at all by Trump.

I’m not sure what purpose is served by rehashing all of that.

Is "strained nonsense" a legal term or did you just pull that out of your ass?

 

[Lakhota]

Later Monday, the justices indicated they would decide quickly whether to hear the case, ordering Trump’s lawyers to respond by Dec. 20. The court’s brief order did not signal what it ultimately would do.

UPDATE: SUPREMES EXPEDITE TRUMP QUESTION

 

[BackAgain]

Why sure! Smith is putting the whole deal on the line to put up a "smoke screen".

Ask your shrink to up your meds, BOZO.

I’d explain it to you, you rusty diseased dildo, but clearly you’re not up to the task of grasping any concepts. Now, go; toddle off.