Supreme Court thumbing the scale for Trump.

[Blaster]

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.

There is no hurry for a decision. This can wait until after the election.

 

[AntonToo]

No, I mean the actual crime? That’s a description of a whole set of grievances that either side could apply to the other.

Jack Smith and the others are corruptly attempting to subvert an American election in 2024. But that’s not a specific crime.

Yes it's an actual crime for Trump to pressure election officials to "find him some votes" to change outcome of an election. It's a crime to try to overturn result by organizing an illicit alternate-elector scheme. It's a crime to incite an attack against the government to halt certification of an election.

Be honest, if Obama was up to even half of this shit in 2016 election you'd be calling for his hanging.

It is NOT a crime to duly prosecute those crimes. The suggestion is insane.

 

[Grumpyolman]

If the Biden law fare attacks on Trump get shot down, all they have left is a confused old man and a very unpopular woman.
Remember the term "shitting bricks"?

 

[MagicMike]

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

"Obscure crime that no one is ever prosecuted for" is a straw man argument.
That is not what this situation is.
Other criminals are prosecuted for fraud pretty routinely.

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

Every American has a constitutional right to a speedy trial by a jury of ones peers.
Are you complaining because Trump's constitutional right is being honored?

 

[bendog]

No, I never said that at all. Of course it’s possible the Supreme Court could rule that way. It makes sense if you read the constitution. Of course it would also make sense to say that he can be tried without an impeachment and removal.

They could say you cannot be tried without an impeachment while in office but that you could be tried without an impeachment after office.

A sitting president could be indicted while in office, by some out of control, Horndog of a state or local prosecutor. You know, like Flatback Fani.

Or, they could be indicted by their “own” department of Justice, if it was like Trump‘s Department of Justice, which was incredibly partisan toward the deep state and against Trump.

The constitution is ambiguous on that point, so the Supreme Court will have to decide. That’s like, you know, their job?

BUT the point is Trump WAS NOT POTUS WHEN INDICTED. He was an ordinary citizen and is asking courts to hold he may not be criminally prosecuted for actions taken when he was potus .... even if a grand jury indicts him, a jury convicts him (unless he doesn't ask for a jury (- and courts affirm on the same notions of const protections we all "enjoy."

And according to textulists like Gosuch and the Pope's Pocket Protector say there's no right or govt power unless its explicitly stated in the const. So where's the const say ex potuses can't be indicted and tried?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Which the GOP senators made crystal clear, when they acquitted Trump on the basis that it should be left to the courts.

Liars.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the Biden law fare attacks on Trump get shot down, all they have left is a confused old man and a very unpopular woman.
Remember the term "shitting bricks"?

Yet you can't provide a single good reason they would be shot down.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes it's an actual crime for Trump to pressure election officials to "find him some votes" to change outcome of an election.

No it isn’t, for an action to be a crime, there must be a statute that outlaws it. Not just “that sounds bad!”

It's a crime to try to overturn result by organizing an illicit alternate-elector scheme.

No it isn’t. This isn’t the first time that someone who lost states electoral votes as organized some alternative electors in case the court rule that the reported electors are not valid. It was done in Hawaii in 1960 if I recall correctly. Done by the great Kennedy himself, in fact. it was no crime then, and it’s no crime now. I don’t even have to ask about a statute, I know there isn’t one.

Think about that, really. Why would it be a crime to say “I don’t think the existing group of electors was selected in a valid way. We should have some back up electors in case the courts agree with us? “ most of the accusations against Trump are pretty lame, but that is absolutely the lamest.

It's a crime to incite an attack against the government to halt certification of an election.

And we know, of course, that Trump absolutely positively did not do that. He gave a speech and specifically told those at the speech to go to the capital and peacefully protest. Takes an incredibly willing believer to twist that into he told them to go and riot.

Be honest, if Obama was up to even half of this shit in 2016 election you'd be calling for his hanging.

No, I would not.

Obama was a very popular president. I disagreed with most of his policies, but the American people had the right to elect him. I would’ve never supported weaponizing the justice system to prevent the American people from having their choice. I think this is where you and I differ. You seem perfectly willing And eager to have the justice department and state prosecutors weapon against a candidate you know will win. That’s the difference between supporting democracy and supporting democracy only when he gives you the results that you want.

It is NOT a crime to duly prosecute those crimes. The suggestion is insane.

Now you’re not even reading what I write. I gave that as an example of something that is NOT a crime. It’s just a complaint.

Yes, Jack Smith and others are weaponizing the justice system. For better or for worse, there is no statute against any of what Smith is doing, so it is not a crime, no matter how much I disagree with it.

Maybe there ought to be against prosecuting politicians to keep them from winning elections. Maybe they ought to be a law against recruiting alternative electors. Maybe they ought to be a law against making a speech.

But there isn’t. Absent a law criminalizing an activity, that activity is not a crime.

 

[AntonToo]

No it isn’t, for an action to be a crime, there must be a statute that outlaws it. Not just “that sounds bad!”

Sounds like you need to spend a bit of time and actually read Trump's indictment.

Read the indictment

Read the indictment against Donald Trump in the 2020 Election investigation

apnews.com

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sounds like you need to spend a bit of time and actually read Trump's indictment.

Read the indictment

Read the indictment against Donald Trump in the 2020 Election investigation

apnews.com

I read the indictments the first 17 times that a Democrat out here said “you gotta read the indictment“. Then I realize, that the one saying that had never read the indictment themselves.

Because it Turned out none of them can tell me which specific crime that Trump is charged with in the indictments and what the evidence is that he committed that crime. So “read the indictment!“ Is all they have to fall back on.

But, maybe you are the exception. If so, tell me what criminal statute Trump is accused of violating, and what the evidences that he took actions that violated it.

 

[Delldude]

How else can you go about holding criminality to account if not before judge and jury in a court of law?

With that said and Biden's recent excellent clean bill of health report, there should be no trouble prosecuting Biden for stealing classified documents, as a sitting Senator, when he is out of office.

His doctor shot the 'elderly man' bullshit right out the window.

 

[AntonToo]

With that said and Biden's recent excellent clean bill of health report, there should be no trouble prosecuting Biden for stealing classified documents, as a sitting Senator, when he is out of office.

His doctor shot the 'elderly man' bullshit right out the window.

You mean no problem except a DECLINATION TO PROSECUTE?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/08/biden-classified-documents-special-counsel-report/

 

[AntonToo]

I read the indictments the first 17 times that a Democrat out here said “you gotta read the indictment“. Then I realize, that the one saying that had never read the indictment themselves.

Because it Turned out none of them can tell me which specific crime that Trump is charged with in the indictments and what the evidence is that he committed that crime. So “read the indictment!“ Is all they have to fall back on.

But, maybe you are the exception. If so, tell me what criminal statute Trump is accused of violating, and what the evidences that he took actions that violated it.

If you actually read it then you know what the legal charges are. Stop telling me it's not against the law.

 

[MagicMike]

But there isn’t. Absent a law criminalizing an activity, that activity is not a crime.

Well....your opinion is duly noted even if not worth very much.
Grand Juries in D.C., Florida, and Georgia have carefully considered all the evidence assembled against Trump in his various cases and recommended issuing indictments.
So the people closest to the evidence disagree with you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No it isn’t, for an action to be a crime, there must be a statute that outlaws it. Not just “that sounds bad!

Yes, and that statute is named in the indictment.

Would everyone please quit feeding this sealion?

 

[Seymour Flops]

With that said and Biden's recent excellent clean bill of health report, there should be no trouble prosecuting Biden for stealing classified documents, as a sitting Senator, when he is out of office.

His doctor shot the 'elderly man' bullshit right out the window.

Yes, it will come down to who do the Democrats want to listen to about a health concern? Will they listen to a lawyer or Biden’s own doctor?

Democrats?

 

[Seymour Flops]

If you actually read it then you know what the legal charges are. Stop telling me it's not against the law.

I actually read it, so I know it is nonsense.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Well....your opinion is duly noted even if not worth very much.
Grand Juries in D.C., Florida, and Georgia have carefully considered all the evidence assembled against Trump in his various cases and recommended issuing indictments.
So the people closest to the evidence disagree with you.

Grand juries are well noted as tools of the prosecutor. Hinsey, old adage that a decent prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

 

[AntonToo]

I actually read it, so I know it is nonsense.

Grand Juries that issued them disagree with your opinion.

You want to actually explain which charges you disagree with and why? Go ahead. Your naked assertions are not worth much.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Grand juries are well noted as tools of the prosecutor. Hinsey, old adage that a decent prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

Your heroes sure are having a hard time finding ham sandwiches!