Trump's motion for stay made to the Supreme Court goes into Great Detail in describing the extraordinary machinations engaged in by the lower courts -

[excalibur]

This in light of last week's Circuit Court ruling.

And it touches on the unholy speed with which judge Chutkan and the Circuit Court have used in this matter. Abnormal behavior from the courts.

Why the rush? There is no statute of limitations issue. So, why the rush and accede to Jack Smith's demands for speed?

Trump's motion for stay made to the Supreme Court goes into GREAT DETAIL in describing the extraordinary machinations engaged in by the lower courts to respond to the demands by SCO Smith for expedited procedures to rush this case to trial for no LEGALLY justifiable reason.

It is 100% factually accurate. The supposedly non-partisan participants in all these efforts should hang their heads in shame.​

 

[White 6]

This in light of last week's Circuit Court ruling.

And it touches on the unholy speed with which judge Chutkan and the Circuit Court have used in this matter. Abnormal behavior from the courts.

Why the rush? There is no statute of limitations issue. So, why the rush and accede to Jack Smith's demands for speed?

Trump's motion for stay made to the Supreme Court goes into GREAT DETAIL in describing the extraordinary machinations engaged in by the lower courts to respond to the demands by SCO Smith for expedited procedures to rush this case to trial for no LEGALLY justifiable reason. ​

​

It is 100% factually accurate. The supposedly non-partisan participants in all these efforts should hang their heads in shame.​

Nope it is just a stall attempt and should be rejected.
Here is a copy, since you thought it unimportant, rather than posting some guy on Twitter, most have never heard of.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A745/300410/20240212154110541_2024-02-12%20-%20US%20v.%20Trump%20-%20Application%20to%20S.%20Ct.%20for%20Stay%20of%20D.C.%20Circuit%20Mandate%20-%20Final%20With%20Tables%20and%20Appendix.pdf

 

[JoeB131]

I can't see the courts ignoring decades of precedent to grant immunity for presidents.

Nixon made this argument 50 years ago and lost.

 

[White 6]

I can't see the courts ignoring decades of precedent to grant immunity for presidents.

Nixon made this argument 50 years ago and lost.

Correct. He is going down on the charges, as he should be.

 

[excalibur]

Nope it is just a stall attempt and should be rejected.
Here is a copy, since you thought it unimportant, rather than posting some guy on Twitter, most have never heard of.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A745/300410/20240212154110541_2024-02-12%20-%20US%20v.%20Trump%20-%20Application%20to%20S.%20Ct.%20for%20Stay%20of%20D.C.%20Circuit%20Mandate%20-%20Final%20With%20Tables%20and%20Appendix.pdf

BS.

You really are clueless as usual, though.

The "some guy on Twitter" was a AUSA for 22 years and has been defending numerous people charged in J6 cases.

And you are? Yeah...

 

[Crepitus]

This in light of last week's Circuit Court ruling.

And it touches on the unholy speed with which judge Chutkan and the Circuit Court have used in this matter. Abnormal behavior from the courts.

Why the rush? There is no statute of limitations issue. So, why the rush and accede to Jack Smith's demands for speed?

Trump's motion for stay made to the Supreme Court goes into GREAT DETAIL in describing the extraordinary machinations engaged in by the lower courts to respond to the demands by SCO Smith for expedited procedures to rush this case to trial for no LEGALLY justifiable reason. ​

​

It is 100% factually accurate. The supposedly non-partisan participants in all these efforts should hang their heads in shame.​

To get it out of the way before the election.

How can you kids not understand that?

You would think tRump would want that too, wouldn't you?

 

[excalibur]

I can't see the courts ignoring decades of precedent to grant immunity for presidents.

Nixon made this argument 50 years ago and lost.

Cite the case in which Nixon claimed immunity from prosecution and lost.

Or perhaps you are confusing United States v. Nixon, which dealt with a subponea of tapes and records?

United States v. Nixon

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

To get it out of the way before the election.

That would be called interfering with a campaign during an election.

 

[White 6]

BS.

You really are clueless as usual, though.

The "some guy on Twitter" was a AUSA for 22 years and has been defending numerous people charged in J6 cases.

And you are? Yeah...

Did the J6 people get off? I doubt it. Litigation success is not a criteria for Trump lawyers, only that they are right wing republican. Probably why they lose a lot.

 

[excalibur]

Did the J6 people get off? I doubt it. Litigation success is not a criteria for Trump lawyers, only that they are right wing republican. Probably why they lose a lot.

Uh, has what to do with what I posted?

 

[Marener]

Uh, has what to do with what I posted?

Your post lacked any useful information.

What does the filing say?

 

[excalibur]

Your post lacked any useful information.

What does the filing say?

It says 'Marener is a douche', amongst other things.

Actually, the OP was from a man who served as an AUSA for 22 years. Bye.

 

[White 6]

Uh, has what to do with what I posted?

You gave your source's credentials. I am sure there are J6 convicts in prison right now, bragging daily, they were defended by a lawyer with the handle Shipwrecked crew, and probably makes all the difference in the world, while the sit in their cell or shower with men,

 

[Marener]

It says 'Marener is a douche', amongst other things.

Actually, the OP was from a man who served as an AUSA for 22 years. Bye.

I know him. He’s a MAGA hack.

There was no useful information. He just demands that we accept his beliefs.

 

[Foxfyre]

This in light of last week's Circuit Court ruling.

And it touches on the unholy speed with which judge Chutkan and the Circuit Court have used in this matter. Abnormal behavior from the courts.

Why the rush? There is no statute of limitations issue. So, why the rush and accede to Jack Smith's demands for speed?

Trump's motion for stay made to the Supreme Court goes into GREAT DETAIL in describing the extraordinary machinations engaged in by the lower courts to respond to the demands by SCO Smith for expedited procedures to rush this case to trial for no LEGALLY justifiable reason. ​

​

It is 100% factually accurate. The supposedly non-partisan participants in all these efforts should hang their heads in shame.​

The argument for presidential immunity is based on the Constitution that gives authority to Congress to 'discipline' the President via the impeachment process in the House and the Senate given authority to remove him/her from office. This is to ensure that malicious prosecution cannot be utilized to interfere with the authority given to the office of President. It should apply to a President after leaving office so far as his presidential duties and authority are concerned. The issue has been argued by constitutional scholars for as long as I can remember.

Ford pardoned Nixon not to protect him from prosecution by any person or persons but rather to immunize him against the impeachment process that likely would have been utilized had there been no pardon. The pardon did so outrage enough people in the electorate it cost Ford his chance for a full term as President and we got Carter instead. (Ford would have been far less damaging.) Gerald Ford goes down in history as the only person to have served as Vice President and President without being elected to either office.

 

[excalibur]

You gave your source's credentials. I am sure there are J6 convicts in prison right now, bragging daily, they were defended by a lawyer with the handle Shipwrecked crew, and probably makes all the difference in the world, while the sit in their cell or shower with men,

And? Has nothing to do with anything I posted. You're just being a jerk-off now. If I could, I would have you on ignore.

 

[IM2]

The argument for presidential immunity is based on the Constitution that gives authority to Congress to 'discipline' the President via the impeachment process in the House and the Senate given authority to remove him/her from office. This is to ensure that malicious prosecution cannot be utilized to interfere with the authority given to the office of President. It should apply to a President after leaving office so far as his presidential duties and authority are concerned. The issue has been argued by constitutional scholars for as long as I can remember.

Ford pardoned Nixon not to protect him from prosecution by any person or persons but rather to immunize him against the impeachment process that likely would have been utilized had there been no pardon. The pardon did so outrage enough people in the electorate it cost Ford his chance for a full term as President and we got Carter instead. (Ford would have been far less damaging.) Gerald Ford goes down in history as the only person to have served as Vice President and President without being elected to either office.

Trump does not have immunity.

 

[Arlette]

That would be called interfering with a campaign during an election.

Nobody forced Trump to run.

Next

 

[excalibur]

 

[jwoodie]

Nope it is just a stall attempt and should be rejected.
Here is a copy, since you thought it unimportant, rather than posting some guy on Twitter, most have never heard of.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A745/300410/20240212154110541_2024-02-12%20-%20US%20v.%20Trump%20-%20Application%20to%20S.%20Ct.%20for%20Stay%20of%20D.C.%20Circuit%20Mandate%20-%20Final%20With%20Tables%20and%20Appendix.pdf

I especially liked page 25, citing the DOJ's argument that the court shouldn't worry about "politically motivated prosecutions" in the future because this was the first time they had done it!