Why is Jack Smith so worried about an election? Justice is blind, right?

[Nostra]

Jack Smith just exposed his investigation as nothing more than a political hit job. Why else would he be trying to bypass the normal judicial process to expedite his case because there is an election coming up?

He clearly has been given marching orders to cut corners to get Trump before the election.

Supreme Court: Trump must respond to special counsel’s presidential immunity petition before Christmas

The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite this appeal and asked Trump’s lawyers to respond to the motion by next Wednesday December 20

www.foxnews.com

 

[Esdraelon]

I think they are becoming unnerved enough that they'll actually try to incarcerate him prior to the election. When THAT penny drops, it's ON...

 

[Moonglow]

Jack Smith just exposed his investigation as nothing more than a political hit job. Why else would he be trying to bypass the normal judicial process to expedite his case because there is an election coming up?

He clearly has been given marching orders to cut corners to get Trump before the election.

Supreme Court: Trump must respond to special counsel’s presidential immunity petition before Christmas

The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite this appeal and asked Trump’s lawyers to respond to the motion by next Wednesday December 20

www.foxnews.com

Why would the DOJ and Jack petition the US Supreme Court for a decision on presidential immunity?

 

[Moonglow]

I think they are becoming unnerved enough that they'll actually try to incarcerate him prior to the election. When THAT penny drops, it's ON...

Reall? Does that mean you will make yer move?

 

[toobfreak]

Jack Smith just exposed his investigation as nothing more than a political hit job. Why else would he be trying to bypass the normal judicial process to expedite his case because there is an election coming up?
He clearly has been given marching orders to cut corners to get Trump before the election.

Well, you see Nos, we have always been told we operate on the RULE OF LAW:

• Under the traditional Rule of Law, you see a CRIME committed, and irregardless of WHO committed it, you prosecute the case the same regardless of who is involved according to how the law is WRITTEN.

• However, now we are seeing justice turned on its head inside-out by democrats, so that now instead, they see a PERSON they want to find GUILTY of SOMETHING, so rather than act on the LAW, they act on the PERSON, instead turning the law books inside out now looking for a CRIME they can somehow apply to get the desired outcome. We call it weaponized law. It achieves the EXACT OPPOSITE of Justice, because instead of assuring equal justice according to the law, it assures unequal justice according to the PERSON.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jack Smith just exposed his investigation as nothing more than a political hit job. Why else would he be trying to bypass the normal judicial process to expedite his case because there is an election coming up?

He clearly has been given marching orders to cut corners to get Trump before the election.

Supreme Court: Trump must respond to special counsel’s presidential immunity petition before Christmas

The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite this appeal and asked Trump’s lawyers to respond to the motion by next Wednesday December 20

www.foxnews.com

Your misunderstandings and misinterpretations are hilariously moronic.

 

[toobfreak]

Your misunderstandings and misinterpretations are hilariously moronic.

TRANSLATION: Nostra so hits the nail right on the head that you have absolutely no counter to any of it than to try to discredit the messenger himself.

 

[White 6]

Jack Smith just exposed his investigation as nothing more than a political hit job. Why else would he be trying to bypass the normal judicial process to expedite his case because there is an election coming up?

He clearly has been given marching orders to cut corners to get Trump before the election.

Supreme Court: Trump must respond to special counsel’s presidential immunity petition before Christmas

The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite this appeal and asked Trump’s lawyers to respond to the motion by next Wednesday December 20

www.foxnews.com

Nah, it is an important point and there is an election coming up. Also, if Trump's contention, that everything he did is above the law, simply because he was president, it is essential to have that ruled as soon as possible. If he really is above the law, a lot of time and money is being wasted and charges really would be interfering in that election. But, if he really is not above the law, all trials should go forward as expeditiously as possible.

I seriously doubt the US Supreme Court will rule he is or was above the laws of the land. So it will boil down in the trials to whether he is guilty or not, just like any other trial or trials.

Good move on the part of Smith. Good move by the Supreme Court agreeing to consider it in an expedited basis (as was done in Bush v Gore) and giving team Trump until next week to respond.

 

[Winco]

I think they are becoming unnerved enough that they'll actually try to incarcerate him prior to the election. When THAT penny drops, it's ON...

Comical.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

TRANSLATION: Nostra so hits the nail right on the head that you have absolutely no counter to any of it than to try to discredit the messenger himself.

That poster is as out there as you are

You two should get a room -- at the House on Haunted Hill, or the Bates Motel.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nah, it is an important point and there is an election coming up. Also, if Trump's contention, that everything he did is above the law, simply because he was president, it is essential to have that ruled as soon as possible. If he really is above the law, a lot of time and money is being wasted and charges really would be interfering in that election. But, if he really is not above the law, all trials should go forward as expeditiously as possible.

I seriously doubt the US Supreme Court will rule he is or was above the laws of the land. So it will boil down in the trials to whether he is guilty or not, just like any other trial or trials.

Good move on the part of Smith. Good move by the Supreme Court agreeing to consider it in an expedited basis (as was done in Bush v Gore) and giving team Trump until next week to respond.

Isn't Trump asking for a ruling on it too? Just slow walking it?

 

[two_iron]

It's straight up election interference. Thwarting the will of the American electorate should be considered treason - a capital offense.

Air drop it into Venezuela and let it enjoy all the amenities of a 3rd-world shithole that imprisons the political opposition.

 

[White 6]

Isn't Trump asking for a ruling on it too? Just slow walking it?

Team trump has filed it in pre-trial motions that must be ruled on before the trial. Yes, it is the slow walk tactic.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's straight up election interference.

Sure it is. That's why the courts are ignoring people like you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Team trump has filed it in pre-trial motions that must be ruled on before the trial. Yes, it is the slow walk tactic.

If they thought Trump was innocent, like BackAgain does, their reply should be -- we side with Jack Smith, speed it up.

 

[Arlette]

Jack Smith just exposed his investigation as nothing more than a political hit job. Why else would he be trying to bypass the normal judicial process to expedite his case because there is an election coming up?

He clearly has been given marching orders to cut corners to get Trump before the election.

Supreme Court: Trump must respond to special counsel’s presidential immunity petition before Christmas

The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite this appeal and asked Trump’s lawyers to respond to the motion by next Wednesday December 20

www.foxnews.com

Time is of the essence. Biden wants to know if he has full immunity. I think he wants to shoot Trump with one of them fancy AR-15s

 

[scruffy]

Nah, it is an important point and there is an election coming up. Also, if Trump's contention, that everything he did is above the law, simply because he was president, it is essential to have that ruled as soon as possible. If he really is above the law, a lot of time and money is being wasted and charges really would be interfering in that election. But, if he really is not above the law, all trials should go forward as expeditiously as possible.

I seriously doubt the US Supreme Court will rule he is or was above the laws of the land. So it will boil down in the trials to whether he is guilty or not, just like any other trial or trials.

Good move on the part of Smith. Good move by the Supreme Court agreeing to consider it in an expedited basis (as was done in Bush v Gore) and giving team Trump until next week to respond.

Let's see, it takes y'r average illegal alien 5 years to get an immigration hearing, but they don't care about that.

Some of the BLM rioters haven't even had a trial yet, and some of the J6 protesters haven't gone to trial either. But they don't care about that.

They only want to railroad Trump before the election, and pretend it's "justice".

Well it ain't.

Mark my words, Smith and Co are asking for serious trouble.

 

[two_iron]

Sure it is. That's why the courts are ignoring people like you.

I like how you pretend this a legitimate persecution.... like a drooling fucktard... a truly dedicated and dutiful bidophile.

 

[White 6]

Let's see, it takes y'r average illegal alien 5 years to get an immigration hearing, but they don't care about that.

Some of the BLM rioters haven't even had a trial yet, and some of the J6 protesters haven't gone to trial either. But they don't care about that.

They only want to railroad Trump before the election, and pretend it's "justice".

Well it ain't.

Mark my words, Smith and Co are asking for serious trouble.

Team Trump brought up the objection to be ruled on in pre-trial motions, because they wanted it ruled on. Now you, not team trump, do not want it ruled on?
Why?

 

[BackAgain]

If they thought Trump was innocent, like BackAgain does, their reply should be -- we side with Jack Smith, speed it up.

Wrong,

I suggest they might very well wish to side with Smith. But for very different reasons. Your reasoning is illogical and actually kind of absurd.

And when both the Persecutor and the defendant agrees, the impediment to granting the application (at this premature stage) is unlikely to be the Parties. It is likely to be the SCOTUS itself.

There really is no rush.