Smith indicts Trump again in Jan 6 case

[Faun]

The only other card I can think of is that Jack Smith was appointed illegally, i.e. having less legal authority than Taylor Swift.

Is that still a Trump torpedo in the water or not?

Except he wasn't appointed illegally. So there's that.

 

[lafayette]

the 'illegal' Smith appt is a torpedo that will circle back on Trump

 

[kyzr]

Except he wasn't appointed illegally. So there's that.

Then there is this:

Clarence Thomas signaled how he might rule on a challenge to Trump special counsel. Would other justices follow?

A court ruling that dismissed Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents indictment echoed language in a concurring opinion Thomas wrote in the former president's election interference case.

www.nbcnews.com

"If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people," Thomas wrote. It was questionable whether Smith's appointment was indeed valid under the Constitution's Appointments Clause, he added.

 

[lafayette]

Thomas is 1 of 9, and that does mean he is powerless.

 

[Faun]

Then there is this:

Clarence Thomas signaled how he might rule on a challenge to Trump special counsel. Would other justices follow?

A court ruling that dismissed Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents indictment echoed language in a concurring opinion Thomas wrote in the former president's election interference case.

www.nbcnews.com

"If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people," Thomas wrote. It was questionable whether Smith's appointment was indeed valid under the Constitution's Appointments Clause, he added.

It's odd he would opine at all given it's not in his court. Also odd he would give an opinion in contrast to precedent. Even more odd he would think an inferior Officer needs to be confirmed by the Senate.

At any rate, Smith appealed so we'll see what the appellate court says. Cannon's been rebuked in the past by an appellate court, for rendering biased and unfounded rulings in favor of Trump. I don't think this will turn out any different.

 

[Rambunctious]

When Trump wins I want to see Smith disbarred....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The only other card I can think of is that Jack Smith was appointed illegally, i.e. having less legal authority than Taylor Swift.

Is that still a Trump torpedo in the water or not?

Possibly. That may end up @ SCOTUS.

Cannon's ruling was the sole anomaly in decades of rulings on this issue. Just a couple days ago, yet another judge disagreed with her decision (Hunter Biden's judge). So likely she gets overturned by the 11th on appeal.

A more normal SCOTUS would accept decades of consistent precedence from the lower courts and not even take up the appeal.

But this SCOTUS is abnormal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When Trump wins I want to see Smith disbarred....

What does Trump winning have to do with that? Nothing.

 

[lafayette]

For Rambunctious:

 

[Shareprofit]

Smith learns very slow

Maybe but he's got it right this time.

 

[lennypartiv]

A lot of people think Cannon got this one right.

 

[JusticeHammer]

New federal indictment filed against Trump in federal Jan. 6 case​

"Special counsel Jack Smith has filed a new indictment of Donald Trump in the case involving an alleged conspiracy to obstruct the results of the 2020 election — a move that follows a historic Supreme Court ruling granting broad immunity to presidents for official acts, and comes just before an election period window was about to close on filing such charges."

This is a direct challenge to Chief Justice Roberts and the MAGA SCOTUS.

"In about 10 days, a Justice Department policy known as “the 60-day rule” will take effect forestalling any new filing of charges against the former president, who is again the Republican nominee for the White House.

In a written notice to the court, Smith said the indictment was filed “by a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case” and that it “reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions.”

Smith said he will not seek to have Trump arraigned again on the new version of the four-count indictment, and still expects to make a joint proposal later this week about how to schedule a new set of pretrial hearings.

The original 45-page indictment has been reduced to 36 pages, after prosecutors removed a series of allegations that the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority said were wrongly filed. Specifically, those allegations related to an effort by Trump in late 2020 to make the Justice Department support his false claims of potential voter fraud."

Smith has complied with SCOTUS's ruling. The crux of the argument will rest on the DOJ resisting Trump's attempt to steamroll his will on DOJ.

Go Trump

 

[Chillicothe]

He'll be lucky to get out of the country without facing prosecution.

Why?
Prosecuted for what?
How would you know?
Share with the forum your bona fides.

Shouldn't we all be against voter fraud?

Ala' fraudulent electors? You bet your bippy!
We don't need no stinkin' illegal electors.

------------------------------------------------

When Trump wins I want to see Smith disbarred....

Why?
On what grounds?
And how would you know what he could or could not be disbarred for?
Show the forum you have some insight, experience, in what it takes for disbarment.
In short, poster Rambunctious reassure the forum that you are a sober responsible adult that the forum can have confidence in. That you know what you are talking about. That you got game.

Good luck.

 

[g5000]

Smith learns very slow

You learn very slowly.

 

[krichton]

Then there is this:

Clarence Thomas signaled how he might rule on a challenge to Trump special counsel. Would other justices follow?

A court ruling that dismissed Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents indictment echoed language in a concurring opinion Thomas wrote in the former president's election interference case.

www.nbcnews.com

"If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people," Thomas wrote. It was questionable whether Smith's appointment was indeed valid under the Constitution's Appointments Clause, he added.

Thomas is a highly corrupt individual whose word on this matter has zero legal standing and certainly has no weight over decades worth of precedent. The case was thrown out by another corrupt judge in Cannon under no legal basis.

 

[krichton]

Why?
Prosecuted for what?
How would you know?
Share with the forum your bona fides.



Ala' fraudulent electors? You bet your bippy!
We don't need no stinkin' illegal electors.

------------------------------------------------

Why?
On what grounds?
And how would you know what he could or could not be disbarred for?
Show the forum you have some insight, experience, in what it takes for disbarment.
In short, poster Rambunctious reassure the forum that you are a sober responsible adult that the forum can have confidence in. That you know what you are talking about. That you got game.

Good luck.

He's probably talking about prosecuted by Trump if he wins. Like in revenge, since it's not against the law now.

 

[kyzr]

Thomas is a highly corrupt individual whose word on this matter has zero legal standing and certainly has no weight over decades worth of precedent. The case was thrown out by another corrupt judge in Cannon under no legal basis.

Former AG Meese filed an amicus brief, Justice Thomas and Judge Cannon and two Law Professors agree with it.

Was Jack Smith's appointment unconstitutional? He has no more authority than Taylor Swift, amicus brief argues

Special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, leaving him powerless to obtain a quick U.S. Supreme Court decision on immunity claims by former President Donald Trump, according to an amicus brief signed by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese and two law professors.

www.abajournal.com

Was Jack Smith's appointment unconstitutional? He has no more authority than Taylor Swift, amicus brief argues​

 

[Rambunctious]

Why?
Prosecuted for what?
How would you know?
Share with the forum your bona fides.



Ala' fraudulent electors? You bet your bippy!
We don't need no stinkin' illegal electors.

------------------------------------------------

Why?
On what grounds?
And how would you know what he could or could not be disbarred for?
Show the forum you have some insight, experience, in what it takes for disbarment.
In short, poster Rambunctious reassure the forum that you are a sober responsible adult that the forum can have confidence in. That you know what you are talking about. That you got game.

Good luck.

Smith is the most overturned prosecutor in DC... he has had his ass chewed out by many courts... he is 100% politically driven which means he is dirty and has broken the law and mistreated people... a good AG appointed by Trump will find his picadillo's and through his ass in jail....

 

[The Duke]

 

[justoffal]

New federal indictment filed against Trump in federal Jan. 6 case​

"Special counsel Jack Smith has filed a new indictment of Donald Trump in the case involving an alleged conspiracy to obstruct the results of the 2020 election — a move that follows a historic Supreme Court ruling granting broad immunity to presidents for official acts, and comes just before an election period window was about to close on filing such charges."

This is a direct challenge to Chief Justice Roberts and the MAGA SCOTUS.

"In about 10 days, a Justice Department policy known as “the 60-day rule” will take effect forestalling any new filing of charges against the former president, who is again the Republican nominee for the White House.

In a written notice to the court, Smith said the indictment was filed “by a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case” and that it “reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions.”

Smith said he will not seek to have Trump arraigned again on the new version of the four-count indictment, and still expects to make a joint proposal later this week about how to schedule a new set of pretrial hearings.

The original 45-page indictment has been reduced to 36 pages, after prosecutors removed a series of allegations that the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority said were wrongly filed. Specifically, those allegations related to an effort by Trump in late 2020 to make the Justice Department support his false claims of potential voter fraud."

Smith has complied with SCOTUS's ruling. The crux of the argument will rest on the DOJ resisting Trump's attempt to steamroll his will on DOJ.

Nah....it doesn't depend on that at all....I'll tell you what it depends on....the fact that Biden did exactly the same thing and even more and skated scot-free. That one fact alone will take Smith down again.

JO