The lawfare against Trump takes a new twist

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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 ******* 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. **** off.

Doubling down on stupid eh? Well, it is your patented move.
Lost in all this is where you said the SCOTUS would not consider the issue. You were wrong..they are considering the issue.
Yeah, it doesn't mean they'll grant it..it also doesn't mean they won't~

The verdicts matter. The appeals only matter in that the Trump goal is to win the election and stall it all out. But if Trump is found guilty, it will hurt him. If he is found guilty, and loses the election..he is toast.

It always amuses me, your pretense towards some intellectual achievement..when it is clear that you put the Pseudo in pseudo-intellectual.

 

[BackAgain]

"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

No difference.

Thanks for highlighting your vacant mind.

 

[BackAgain]

Look, you Commie Canuck ****, 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 ******* 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 ****.

A stellar example of Dainty’s utter inability to think.

 

[BackAgain]

Doubling down on stupid eh? Well, it is your patented move.
Lost in all this is where you said the SCOTUS would not consider the issue.

Lost on you is the fact that the SCOTUS is still able to decide to decide not to consider the issue. After the Trump legal reply, maybe sometime in January the SCOTUS will issue its order to reject the cert petition. And their basis might yet prove to be that it seeks an advisory opinion.

It’s unclear why this leaves you so befuddled. My hunch is because you’re ******* stupid.

You were wrong..they are considering the issue.

No. You’re wrong. Agreeing to consider the application is simply not the same as agreeing to decide the issue. Again, after this preliminary consideration, they might still reject the petition.

However, even if they decide to take it up, that only means that my hunch was off. Oh well. It wasn’t a guarantee anyway, you pinhead scumbag.

Yeah, it doesn't mean they'll grant it..it also doesn't mean they won't~

Right. They may. They may not. You know what that’s called: undecided yet.

I’m not sorry you’re incapable of following along. You’re a retard but you’re also just a ****.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Lost on you is the fact that the SCOTUS is still able to decide to decide not to consider the issue. After the Trump legal reply, maybe sometime in January the SCOTUS will issue its order to reject the cert petition. And their basis might yet prove to be that it seeks an advisory opinion.

It’s unclear why this leaves you so befuddled. My hunch is because you’re ******* stupid.

No. You’re wrong. Agreeing to consider the application is simply not the same as agreeing to decide the issue. Again, after this preliminary consideration, they might still reject the petition.

However, even if they decide to take it up, that only means that my hunch was off. Oh well. It wasn’t a guarantee anyway, you pinhead scumbag.

Right. They may. They may not. You know what that’s called: undecided yet.

I’m not sorry you’re incapable of following along. You’re a retard but you’re also just a ****.

IOW...you're totally wrong. Just another self-made tool. All that Insulting bs cannot hide the fact that you're a one-trick pony douche.
You like to pontificate with such certitude, always ignoring that you are wrong the majority of the time.
Too funny~

 

[BackAgain]

IOW...you're totally wrong. Just another self-made tool. All that Insulting bs cannot hide the fact that you're a one-trick pony douche.
You like to pontificate with such certitude, always ignoring that you are wrong the majority of the time.
Too funny~

Iol. You’re too stupid to grasp things even when explained to you.

As noted: you’re just a retarded ****.

 

[Dante]

No difference.

Thanks for highlighting your vacant mind.

Those are quotes from you.

 

[BackAgain]

Those are quotes from you.

I know. And that doesn’t change a thing. I wasn’t commenting on the quotes themselves, you idiot.

 

[Dante]

A stellar example of Dainty’s utter inability to think.

also, quotes from you to members all over the place.

They define what you in actuality, really are all about. Protestations to the contrary.

 

[Dante]

Iow, you’re too stupid to grasp things even when explained to you.

As noted: you’re just a retarded ****.

and again...

 

[Dante]

I know. And that doesn’t change a thing. I wasn’t commenting on the quotes themselves, you idiot.

to yourself?

okay. then next time you have an episodic breakdown, please don't focus on dragging me into it?

thank you ahead of time

 

[BackAgain]

also, quotes from you to members all over the place.

They define what you in actuality, really are all about. Protestations to the contrary.

I’m not responsible for your persistent inability to comprehend, Dainty.

Also, as you know, you’re also off topic.

Your mumbling gibberish to the side, the thread topic remains:

The lawfare against Trump. As I correctly noted in the OP, it has taken an odd new twist. The Special Persecutor is seeking a prior ruling from the SCOTUS as to whether it is legally permissible to try President Trump.

You remain to lo blinded to objectivity to even question why he’s doing this.

 

[BackAgain]

and again...

Yeah. I was there when I posted it.

And you’re still off topic.

Is there some special reason you find it always necessary to post off topic? I understand your cowardice. Deflection is easier for you than discussion or debate. But what is it you fear?

 

[BackAgain]

to yourself?

okay. then next time you have an episodic breakdown, please don't focus on dragging me into it?

thank you ahead of time

I haven’t had any. And I haven’t dragged you anywhere.

Don’t persist in your delusion that your pathetic decisions to deflect and derail are caused by me.

Own up to your numerous and obvious failings, Dainty.

Also, consider complying with the rules and posting on topic.

Care to try again?

Ask yourself what actual purpose is served by Smith’s cert application. That might be a starting point for you.

 

[Dante]

Yeah. I was there when I posted it.

And you’re still off topic.

Is there some special reason you find it always necessary to post off topic? I understand your cowardice. Deflection is easier for you than discussion or debate. But what is it you fear?

and here you are...



Trump cannot do The Twist.

 

[BackAgain]

and here you are...



Trump cannot do The Twist.

So here we have as close to honesty as we are likely to get from Dainty. He is basically admitting that he is too cowardly to bother to post on topic.

No surprise.

 

[Dante]

I haven’t had any. And I haven’t dragged you anywhere.

Don’t persist in your delusion that your pathetic decisions to deflect and derail are caused by me.

Own up to your numerous and obvious failings, Dainty.

Also, consider complying with the rules and posting on topic.

Care to try again?

Ask yourself what actual purpose is served by Smith’s cert application. That might be a starting point for you.

Lets get ...

The lawfare against Trump takes a new twist​

Huh? "what amounts to?" You want people to believe a federal prosecutor with Smith's experience and knowledge is unaware of the facts?

"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." advisory opinion

Facts Matter
and you link is credible?

source: NYT (source Trump himself uses)

Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Decide Whether Trump Is Immune From Prosecution​

The request was unusual in two ways: Jack Smith asked the justices to rule before an appeals court acted, and he urged them to move with exceptional speed.

“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,” Mr. Smith wrote.

He added that speed was of the essence, as Mr. Trump’s appeal of a trial judge’s ruling rejecting his claim of immunity suspends the trial of the charges against him. The trial is scheduled to begin on March 4 in Federal District Court in Washington.

Now:

An advisory opinion is a non-binding interpretation of the law by a court,1. Advisory Opinion, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). essentially the court providing advice on an abstract or hypothetical legal question.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-4-1/ALDE_00013563/

 

[BackAgain]

Lets get ...

The lawfare against Trump takes a new twist​

Merely reiterating a post you previously offered which is devoid of logic serves no purpose.

If you actually have any interest in discussing the topic, I’m here to help focus the conversation just for you.

The claimed reason by Smith to file this cert application is that he wants to speed up the process — because the “orange man bad” had suggested that HE would seek to appeal to the SCOTUS.

That makes no sense. All Smith would have to do is either oppose the Trump cert application or ask the SCOTUS for an expedited determination. Instead, Smith is the one to file (and asks for it to be expedited).

The SCOTUS can now either (1) grant the cert petition (after Trump’s lawyers reply) or (2) deny it. What I’ve expressed my hunch about is that the SCOTUS will likely end up denying cert.

But, what if my hunch is mistaken? What if the SCOTUS decides to go ahead and grant cert? Will they accept the way the “Special” Persecutor has attempted to frame the issue? I doubt it.

But the bigger question is this: why would the SCOTUS grant this cert application? The same legal question would eventually arise at the end of the trial anyway in the event of a conviction. Why wouldn’t the Court therefore apply their normal judicial practice and let the case proceed, let a full record get developed and a full appellate record get created?

What’s the rush?

 

[Dante]

Merely reiterating a post you previously offered which is devoid of logic serves no purpose.

If you actually have any interest in discussing the topic, I’m here to help focus the conversation just for you.

The claimed reason by Smith to file this cert application is that he wants to speed up the process — because the “orange man bad” had suggested that HE would seek to appeal to the SCOTUS.

That makes no sense. All Smith would have to do is either oppose the Trump cert application or ask the SCOTUS for an expedited determination. Instead, Smith is the one to file (and asks for it to be expedited).

The SCOTUS can now either (1) grant the cert petition (after Trump’s lawyers reply) or (2) deny it. What I’ve expressed my hunch about is that the SCOTUS will likely end up denying cert.

But, what if my hunch is mistaken? What if the SCOTUS decides to go ahead and grant cert? Will they accept the way the “Special” Persecutor has attempted to frame the issue? I doubt it.

But the bigger question is this: why would the SCOTUS grant this cert application? The same legal question would eventually arise at the end of the trial anyway in the event of a conviction. Why wouldn’t the Court therefore apply their normal judicial practice and let the case proceed, let a full record get developed and a full appellate record get created?

What’s the rush?

You've lost me at the point of your usually infantile need to insert shit... "orange bad man"

 

[BackAgain]

You've lost me at the point of your usually infantile need to insert shit... "orange bad man"

You’ve been lost since birth.

Also, you seem to mistakenly believe that only you are allowed to introduce rhetorical commentary or ad hominems, etc.

Face it, Dainty. You’re in way over your head. As usual.