Supreme Court thumbing the scale for Trump.

[AntonToo]

I get that you think it’s urgent because the election. I don’t see the law or the case law, that says that if one side really wants to win an election, that constitutes urgency in a criminal case.

But I haven’t really researched that point. What have you found about it?

I'm on the side of Trump having his day in court like anyone else, instead of being enabled by a hyper partisan SC acts to run out the clock and remain above the law.

Don't know what the **** is wrong with you to want to be on the other side. If you had any real conviction that Trump is innocent then you wouldn't be supporting this.

 

[Care4all]

The right to a speedy trial is for the defendant, not frothing at the mouth Dimwingers hoping to lock up Tater’s rival before the election.

The right to a speedy trial is not just for the defendant, but also for the victims..... Justice delayed, is justice denied.

 

[Nostra]

The right to a speedy trial is not just for the defendant, but also for the victims..... Justice delayed, is justice denied.

Sorry, it is for the defendant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just the facts....sing along now with your fellow idiots

Haha, facts from trumplandia...

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm on the side of Trump having his day in court like anyone else, instead of being enabled by a hyper partisan SC acts to run out the clock and remain above the law.

Run out what clock?

Is there a statute of limitations for the crimes that Trump is alleged to have committed? Or are you talking about the election again? Are you really hanging your hat on this:

The hurry is in extrodinary situation where we have DOJ guidelines that a sitting president can't be prosecuted and a defendant that may become a president before his ongoing criminal cases are resolved.

There is OBVIOSLY a limited time frame in play which justifies high priority. How can you possibly say there isn't?

You are saying the quiet part out loud. I'm surprised your fellow Dems are not PM'ing you to cut it out.

Why should it be a HIGH PRIORITY for the USSC to interfere with the very likely choice of the voters of Donald Trump as president starting in January 2025?

DOJ guidelines can be changed much more easily than a USSC decision. Are you really unaware of what a dangerous precedent it would set that the party in power can attempt to prosecute the front runner of the opposing party AND that the Supreme Court will fast track any appeals so that the party in power can be successful? Not successful in the prosecution, but successful in preventing the defendant from being elected? Do you get that this new strategy could be used by either party, if the USSC allows it?

Do you understant that currently the most likely scenario is that the Republicans will be the Party in Power starting in less than a year? You want GOP prosecutors to go after Harris, or Newsom or Whoever becomes the front-runner in 2028? With a partisan Supreme Court using that president to make it easy for them?

Don't know what the **** is wrong with you to want to be on the other side. If you had any real conviction that Trump is innocent then you wouldn't be supporting this.

I think you might be getting more upset than you should. I recommend saying only "agree to disagree" in your next reply and taking a break from the forum. If you say that, I will let you have the last word, so you can relax a bit.

It is very possible that Trump may be technically guilty of some of the dozens of crimes with which he is charged. Even more possible that a confused jury from DC, Atlanta, or New York might find him guilty just because they have been told over and over by the media that he is guilty, and the testimony will be so dry and boring that they cannot follow it.

I do know that Trump is being prosecuted for things that no one has ever been prosecuted for before, and that the indictments presented very little actual evidence. To the media, and to you apparently, it seems that accusations are evidence.

So, whether Trump is "innocent" or not depends on how you are defining the word. For example, H. Clinton was not prosecuted for holding and refusing to return classified information on her private server, because no one had ever been prosecuted in a similar circumstance. Was she then innocent?

What will you do if your Party manages to finish a trial weeks before Trump's innaguaration, but the jury is hung? How angry will you be then, at the thought of one or two jurors preventing the conviction that you covet?

Most importantly, have you made a plan for when Trump becomes president again? A mental health maintenance plan, I mean?

 

[AntonToo]

Run out what clock?

How many times I have to explain the same thing?

DOJ policy is that a sitting president can't be prosecuted.

And thats aside from Trump simply corruptly firing his prosecutors or pardoning himself, which he of course will do if needed.

 

[Clipper]

Nixon should have hanged.

So should Trump.

 

[Nostra]

How many times I have to explain the same thing?

DOJ policy is that a sitting president can't be prosecuted.

And thats aside from Trump simply corruptly firing his prosecutors or pardoning himself, which he of course will do if needed.

Glad you admit if Biden’s DOJ can’t lock Trump up he will win in November.

 

[Clipper]

There will still be time for a summer trial even after the April hearing and decision.
It will just mean that the DOJ's longstanding tradition of not holding trials like this so close to an election has to be suspended.
Of course the Trump camp will scream bloody murder about "election interference," but oh well....that has been their plan all along anyway.
Trump has already referred in a Truth Social post to the "DOJ "law" about trials in election years" but he's a dumbass.
There's no "law" about this. It is only commonly accepted practice, but this is an extroardinary case.
Extaordinary measures and practices are called for.
And at the end of the day it isn't The DOJ's fault that ALL of Trump's trials are going to be stacked up right next to the election....from May till November now.
That was Trump's decision.

The likely effect of his criminal Trials all being delayed until so late in the year and so close to the election is that voters are going to be so fatigued by constant, daily news of Trump's courtroom details and all the evidence against him they are hearing they're liable to cast votes to ensure they NEVER have to hear his stupid name again.
So look on the bright side.
The SCOTUS waiting so long to shoot down his immunity argument just may turn out to be a real gift to America.

I may be wrong but DOJ policy refers to a SITTING POTUS. Last I heard Trump was a private citizen running for POTUS.

 

[AntonToo]

It is very possible that Trump may be technically guilty of some of the dozens of crimes with which he is charged.

Why the hell would you want a criminal in the White House?

If he commited crimes he should stand trial for it like anyone else instead of floating above law. Why do you keep arguing for enabling lawlessness and corruption?

 

[Clipper]

Glad you admit if Biden’s DOJ can’t lock Trump up he will win in November.

I didn't know that DOJ was the judge & jury.

I can't wait to see your boy next month sit in a courtroom for 3 weeks seething & holding a pity party on the courtroom steps at the end of each day.

 

[Nostra]

I didn't know that DOJ was the judge & jury.

You should just post the first three words of that post for all your posts, Simp.

 

[Clipper]

You should just post the first three words of that post for all your posts, Simp.

Wil you be in N.Y. next month for Trump's daily pity party during his trial hoping for a good whiff when he soils himself?

 

[AntonToo]

No I'm not, I already made it clear, but I'll say it again, cuz you're slow. Probably slow on the courts too.

A. When maggots make shit up, such as to weaponize the justice system to throw a POTUS election in their favor, the accused should use EVERYTHING at their disposal to fight those maggots off. Trump's team is doing exactly that.

B. I suspect the SCOTUS will rule Trump's not immune to your poison.

C. Then Trump will receive the antidote in court, because there's no way in **** this insurrection business will stick anywhere beyond inside that tiny head of yours, and those like it.

Clear enough?

Some of the dumbest nonsense I've heard.

How exactly do you think it's possible for prosecution to make something up and then be able to sell it to defense-aproved jury of peers beyond reasonable doubt?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Prosecutors who bring these charges put their careers on the line. if you are going to claim they have no confidence in the merrits of their case you better have something a lot more convincing than adolecent "maggots and antidote" fantasies.

 

[scruffy]

That is your whole post....nothing but talking points

Agreed. Libtards trying to delegitimize the Supreme Court. So what else is new.

(As if they needed any delegitimizing lol - money is speech and all that jazz)

 

[scruffy]

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Prosecutors who bring these charges put their careers on the line.

Yep. Kim Gardner is disbarred, Fani is about to be disbarred, and Letitia's only a stone's throw away.

 

[Seymour Flops]

How many times I have to explain the same thing?

DOJ policy is that a sitting president can't be prosecuted.

And thats aside from Trump simply corruptly firing his prosecutors or pardoning himself, which he of course will do if needed.

And I'll explain it to you as many times as needed: DOJ policy is not law, though they act like it is when questioned by Congress. They could change their policy anytime.

What is the interest of the people in convicting Trump, even if it means violating precedent and treating him differently from all previous defendants?

What do the people get out of it that also makes up for the fact that - if Democrats are successful - the election will be thrown to the current candidate who is trailing Trump by a significant margin? How does that benefit the U.S. as a whole for the people to be robbed of their choice?

Other people "guilty" of similar crimes have not been prosecuted, why would the nation benefit from this selective prosecution?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why the hell would you want a criminal in the White House?

Everyone is a "criminal" by that standard of being technically guilty of some obscure crime that no one is ever prosectuted for.

If he commited crimes he should stand trial for it like anyone else instead of floating above law. Why do you keep arguing for enabling lawlessness and corruption?

Having his trial rushed due to an election is NOT being treated "like anyone else."

 

[Independent thinker]

Conservative SC majority is now shedding any pretence still left to partisan impartiality.

Trump has little to stand on in his criminal trials, so his only end game is delaying them long enough to again make it to the White House and put himself above the law.

Nobody seriously thinks SC is going to grant Trump immunity, nobody thinks they will overturn iron-clad lower court ruling....but we have a Supreme Court that seems to be willing to use that excuse to play along and halt Trump's criminal trials for months, making it near impossible from them to complete before election.

It's been 135 days since Jack Smith asked the court to expedite descision on immunuty...nope! They insist on taking no less than 5 months to settle an obvious no-brainer outcome.

Even if there was some argument about how busy they are or how complex of case this is , they still didn't have to do it this way. SC could have simply allowed the trials to go on, while they square away these go-nowhere immunity claims.

In Taking Up Trump’s Immunity Claim, Supreme Court Bolstered His Delay Strategy

By scheduling a hearing for late April on the former president’s assertion that he cannot be prosecuted for his actions in office, the justices increased the chances that he will not face trial by Election Day.

www.nytimes.com

We knew Thomas was an unrepentant Trumptard and Alito is not far behind, but for the rest to go along with this ridiculous shit?

This marks a whole new low for Supreme Court, whole new level of partisanship and this is not going to end well.

Well, we certainly know that Democrats have been thumbing the scale for over six years now.

 

[AntonToo]

Yep. Kim Gardner is disbarred, Fani is about to be disbarred, and Letitia's only a stone's throw away.

Will you admit to being full of bs when these fantasies don’t pan out?