legalmomma
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,602
- Reaction score
- 15,927
Citizen Trump
DC - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 4 federal counts in 2020 election interference, 1 Aug 2023, Trial 4 Mar 2024 #2
- Thread starter sds71
- Start date
So some people think that overturning election results is part of a president's official duties?? God help us.
Lilibet
Southern Oregon
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 19,412
- Reaction score
- 80,249
Trump’s predictable reaction on Truth Social, partially quoted…
www.the-independent.com
“A President of the United States must have Full Immunity in order to properly function and do what has to be done for the good of our Country,” Mr Trump wrote.
“A Nation-destroying ruling like this cannot be allowed to stand. If not overturned, as it should be, this decision would terribly injure not only the Presidency, but the Life, Breath, and Success of our Country.”
He continued: “A President will be afraid to act for fear of the opposite Party’s Vicious Retribution after leaving Office. I know from personal experience because I am going through it right now.
Trump lashes out at ‘nation-destroying ruling’ after immunity defence struck down
‘If not overturned, as it should be, this decision would terribly injure not only the Presidency, but the Life, Breath, and Success of our Country,’ Mr Trump claimed on Truth Social
www.the-independent.com
“A President of the United States must have Full Immunity in order to properly function and do what has to be done for the good of our Country,” Mr Trump wrote.
“A Nation-destroying ruling like this cannot be allowed to stand. If not overturned, as it should be, this decision would terribly injure not only the Presidency, but the Life, Breath, and Success of our Country.”
He continued: “A President will be afraid to act for fear of the opposite Party’s Vicious Retribution after leaving Office. I know from personal experience because I am going through it right now.
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,274
- Reaction score
- 175,854
Trump’s predictable reaction on Truth Social, partially quoted…
Trump lashes out at ‘nation-destroying ruling’ after immunity defence struck down
‘If not overturned, as it should be, this decision would terribly injure not only the Presidency, but the Life, Breath, and Success of our Country,’ Mr Trump claimed on Truth Social
“A President of the United States must have Full Immunity in order to properly function and do what has to be done for the good of our Country,” Mr Trump wrote.
“A Nation-destroying ruling like this cannot be allowed to stand. If not overturned, as it should be, this decision would terribly injure not only the Presidency, but the Life, Breath, and Success of our Country.”
He continued: “A President will be afraid to act for fear of the opposite Party’s Vicious Retribution after leaving Office. I know from personal experience because I am going through it right now.
It is a shame that President Biden does not subscribe to this theory, otherwise he could just throw trump in prison or exile him ... "for the good of our country" and for the sanctity of the votes of the US people.
CNN commissioned a poll at the end of January 2024. 74% of the respondents thought that trump would not accept the result if he stands for election in November and loses.
imo
Trump and his cult of followers also seem to be forgetting there was a President, Richard Nixon, who resigned from office for a crime committed while he was President and for which his successor, Gerald Ford had to pardon him. Nixon felt he did nothing wrong, but the SCOTUS ordered him to turn over all the recorded phone conversations. Nixon considered pardoning himself.
JMO
TootsieFootsie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 13,003
- Reaction score
- 86,114
I imagine now he might be feeling "all shook up"
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 84,334
- Reaction score
- 281,816
Not too sure if this is happening - but will post it - at least I can shorten it up a bit.
Oops I just looked at the docket - I had this on 2/8 but changed it to the 6th.
Docket update:
Doc# Date Filed Description
196 Feb 6, 2024 JUDGMENT of USCA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 179 Notice of Appeal - Interlocutory. Affirming the Order of the District Court Appealed from in this Cause. USCA Case Number 23-3228. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Opinion Argued on 1/9/2024 and decided on 2/6/2024). (zhsj) (Entered: 02/06/2024) Main Document USCA Judgment Attachment 1 USCA Opinion
[Denied]
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
Update!
Tuesday, February 6th:
*Oral Arguments Hearing (U.S. Supreme Court) (@ 9:30am ET) - DC – Donald John Trump (77) has been indicted & charged (8/1/23) & arraigned (8/3/23) with four counts re 2020 election: conspiracy to defraud the United States "by using dishonesty, fraud & deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting & certifying the results of the presidential election"; 2 counts of tampering with witness, victim or an informant, conspiracy to obstruct an Official proceeding & conspiracy against rights of citizens. Plead not guilty. Personal recognizance bond. Conditions of release: agreed to by both sides. No violations of federal law. Must appear in court as required. Must sign appearance bond. Shall not communicate about the facts of the case to any individual known to the defendant to be a witness except through attorneys. Case #23-cr-00257-TSC-1, US District Court, District of Columbia
The co-conspirators were excluded from the lawsuit. Five of the six alleged co-conspirators, based on details provided in transcripts of testimony to the Jan. 6 Committee & other records, appear to be: longtime Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani; lawyer John Eastman, who helped architect the "fake electors scheme"; attorney Sidney Powell, who helped lead Trump's post-campaign legal efforts; former Justice Dept. official Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump considered making his attorney general and Kenneth Chesebro, another attorney pushing the "fake electors scheme." It is not clear who co-conspirator 6 is, but it could be Boris Epshteyn??).
Trump's alleged role in the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the building in an effort to stop the confirmation of President Joe Biden's election victory, is under scrutiny from several federal government bodies. The most visible has been a congressional committee that spent 18 months looking into Trump's actions. They held a series of televised hearings laying out their case that his election fraud claims led directly to the riot. Following these hearings, the committee accused Trump of inciting insurrection & other crimes.
Defense attorneys: John F. Lauro, lead attorney, Emil Bove, Fitzah I. Pavalon, Pro Hac Vice, Todd Blanche, Pro Hac Vice & Attorney Will Scharf.
Prosecution: Thomas Windom, Molly Gulland Gaston, J.P. Cooney & James Pearce all lead attorneys.
Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya / U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan presiding.
Trial was set to begin on 3/4/24 with jury selection has been Vacated (2/2/24) while on appeal. Appeal was denied.
Case info from 3/25/23 thru 1/5/24 reference post #440 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...-1-aug-2023-trial-4-mar-2024-2.690382/page-22
1/9/24 Update: Oral arguments hearing on 1/9/24 @ 9:30am in the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC Circuit (a 3-Judge panel) for the immunity question. 12/29/23 Update: Brief of Former Government Officials & Constitutional Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellee & Affirmance filed by Fred Wertheimer, Democracy 21 Educational Fund, Matthew A. Seligman of Stris & Maher LLP, Seth P. Waxman, Todd C. Zubler, Colleen M. Campbell, Nathaniel W. Reisinger, David M. Levine & Kyle T. Edwards of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr LLP. A group of 16 former prosecutors, elected officials, other government officials & constitutional lawyers who have collectively spent decades defending the Constitution, the interests of the American people & the rule of law” submitted a filing to be considered in the 9th January oral arguments hearing. It is their 26-page legal argument that.... 1. The constitution does not endow former presidents with immunity from criminal prosecution. 2. Even if former presidents had some limited immunity against criminal prosecution, it could not conceivably reach the acts alleged here.
1/9/24 Update: Defense attorney John Sauer & James Pearce, argued for Jack Smith's office before the 3-Judge panel. Appeals court judges signaled Tuesday that they will likely reject Donald Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution in his election interference case. The outcome seemed clear during arguments that touched on a range of political and legal considerations. The judges did not say when they might rule, but the timing of their decision is crucial with a March 4 trial date looming. Trump’s lawyers, who are hoping to delay the case beyond the November presidential election, are certain to go to the U.S. Supreme Court if the D.C. court sides with special counsel Jack Smith. For reference see posts #445 & 447 (articles) page 23.
1/12/24 Update: (194) Reply in Support [Trump's reply in support of Motion for Order to Show Cause re Court's Stay Order]. 1/18/24 Update: (195) Opinion & Order as to Trump: Granting in part & denying in part Defendant's 192 Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Prosecutors Should Not Be Held in Contempt. Until the mandate is returned in this case, the parties shall not file any substantive pretrial motions without first seeking leave of court & any such request for leave shall state whether the proposed motion concerns matters involved in the appeal or is instead ancillary to it. See Opinion & Order for details. Denied contempt charges for Special Counsel Jack Smith. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 1/18/24.
1/19/24 Update: Coming up: Monday, 1/22/24: All Motions in Limine replies shall be due. The court will schedule a hearing on the motion(s) as necessary. Thursday, 2/8/24: Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, the case that will determine if the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution disqualifies the GOP 2024 presidential frontrunner from running for office due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. U.S. Supreme Court. Monday, 2/19/24 – Witness list deadline. Monday, 3/4/24 @ 9:30am: Jury selection & trial scheduled to begin in Special Counsel Jack Smith's four-count felony 2020-election subversion case against Trump. Prosecutors & defense counsel have said the trial is expected to last between eight to 12 weeks for both sides combined to present their cases. Trial was to begin, now held in abeyance pending resolution of appeal.
2/2/24 Update: Trump’s March 4, 2024 trial date on charges of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election has been dropped from the public calendar of the federal court in Washington, a sign of what has long been anticipated — that his claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would delay his trial while it remains on appeal. The change did not appear on the official criminal case docket before U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who has made clear since Trump filed his appeal on 12/7/23 that all trial deadlines would be suspended while he challenges the case.
2/5/24 Update: Administration of written questionnaire to prospective jurors-VACATED. March 4, 2024 trial is VACATED. The court will set a new schedule if & when the mandate is returned signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/2/24.
2/6/24 Update: Appeal (23-3228) - U.S. Court of Appeals (DC Circuit), Henderson, Childs & Pan, Circuit Judges. We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed. We conclude that “[c]oncerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government” compel the rejection of his claim of immunity in this case. We also have considered his contention that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly “official” action that he took as President — a contention that is unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution. Finally, we are unpersuaded by his argument that this prosecution is barred by “double jeopardy principles.” Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. “We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes…Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.” “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” the court wrote.
Oops I just looked at the docket - I had this on 2/8 but changed it to the 6th.
Docket update:
Doc# Date Filed Description
196 Feb 6, 2024 JUDGMENT of USCA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 179 Notice of Appeal - Interlocutory. Affirming the Order of the District Court Appealed from in this Cause. USCA Case Number 23-3228. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Opinion Argued on 1/9/2024 and decided on 2/6/2024). (zhsj) (Entered: 02/06/2024) Main Document USCA Judgment Attachment 1 USCA Opinion
[Denied]
link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
Update!
Tuesday, February 6th:
*Oral Arguments Hearing (U.S. Supreme Court) (@ 9:30am ET) - DC – Donald John Trump (77) has been indicted & charged (8/1/23) & arraigned (8/3/23) with four counts re 2020 election: conspiracy to defraud the United States "by using dishonesty, fraud & deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting & certifying the results of the presidential election"; 2 counts of tampering with witness, victim or an informant, conspiracy to obstruct an Official proceeding & conspiracy against rights of citizens. Plead not guilty. Personal recognizance bond. Conditions of release: agreed to by both sides. No violations of federal law. Must appear in court as required. Must sign appearance bond. Shall not communicate about the facts of the case to any individual known to the defendant to be a witness except through attorneys. Case #23-cr-00257-TSC-1, US District Court, District of Columbia
The co-conspirators were excluded from the lawsuit. Five of the six alleged co-conspirators, based on details provided in transcripts of testimony to the Jan. 6 Committee & other records, appear to be: longtime Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani; lawyer John Eastman, who helped architect the "fake electors scheme"; attorney Sidney Powell, who helped lead Trump's post-campaign legal efforts; former Justice Dept. official Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump considered making his attorney general and Kenneth Chesebro, another attorney pushing the "fake electors scheme." It is not clear who co-conspirator 6 is, but it could be Boris Epshteyn??).
Trump's alleged role in the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the building in an effort to stop the confirmation of President Joe Biden's election victory, is under scrutiny from several federal government bodies. The most visible has been a congressional committee that spent 18 months looking into Trump's actions. They held a series of televised hearings laying out their case that his election fraud claims led directly to the riot. Following these hearings, the committee accused Trump of inciting insurrection & other crimes.
Defense attorneys: John F. Lauro, lead attorney, Emil Bove, Fitzah I. Pavalon, Pro Hac Vice, Todd Blanche, Pro Hac Vice & Attorney Will Scharf.
Prosecution: Thomas Windom, Molly Gulland Gaston, J.P. Cooney & James Pearce all lead attorneys.
Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya / U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan presiding.
Trial was set to begin on 3/4/24 with jury selection has been Vacated (2/2/24) while on appeal. Appeal was denied.
Case info from 3/25/23 thru 1/5/24 reference post #440 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...-1-aug-2023-trial-4-mar-2024-2.690382/page-22
1/9/24 Update: Oral arguments hearing on 1/9/24 @ 9:30am in the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC Circuit (a 3-Judge panel) for the immunity question. 12/29/23 Update: Brief of Former Government Officials & Constitutional Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellee & Affirmance filed by Fred Wertheimer, Democracy 21 Educational Fund, Matthew A. Seligman of Stris & Maher LLP, Seth P. Waxman, Todd C. Zubler, Colleen M. Campbell, Nathaniel W. Reisinger, David M. Levine & Kyle T. Edwards of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr LLP. A group of 16 former prosecutors, elected officials, other government officials & constitutional lawyers who have collectively spent decades defending the Constitution, the interests of the American people & the rule of law” submitted a filing to be considered in the 9th January oral arguments hearing. It is their 26-page legal argument that.... 1. The constitution does not endow former presidents with immunity from criminal prosecution. 2. Even if former presidents had some limited immunity against criminal prosecution, it could not conceivably reach the acts alleged here.
1/9/24 Update: Defense attorney John Sauer & James Pearce, argued for Jack Smith's office before the 3-Judge panel. Appeals court judges signaled Tuesday that they will likely reject Donald Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution in his election interference case. The outcome seemed clear during arguments that touched on a range of political and legal considerations. The judges did not say when they might rule, but the timing of their decision is crucial with a March 4 trial date looming. Trump’s lawyers, who are hoping to delay the case beyond the November presidential election, are certain to go to the U.S. Supreme Court if the D.C. court sides with special counsel Jack Smith. For reference see posts #445 & 447 (articles) page 23.
1/12/24 Update: (194) Reply in Support [Trump's reply in support of Motion for Order to Show Cause re Court's Stay Order]. 1/18/24 Update: (195) Opinion & Order as to Trump: Granting in part & denying in part Defendant's 192 Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Prosecutors Should Not Be Held in Contempt. Until the mandate is returned in this case, the parties shall not file any substantive pretrial motions without first seeking leave of court & any such request for leave shall state whether the proposed motion concerns matters involved in the appeal or is instead ancillary to it. See Opinion & Order for details. Denied contempt charges for Special Counsel Jack Smith. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 1/18/24.
1/19/24 Update: Coming up: Monday, 1/22/24: All Motions in Limine replies shall be due. The court will schedule a hearing on the motion(s) as necessary. Thursday, 2/8/24: Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, the case that will determine if the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution disqualifies the GOP 2024 presidential frontrunner from running for office due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. U.S. Supreme Court. Monday, 2/19/24 – Witness list deadline. Monday, 3/4/24 @ 9:30am: Jury selection & trial scheduled to begin in Special Counsel Jack Smith's four-count felony 2020-election subversion case against Trump. Prosecutors & defense counsel have said the trial is expected to last between eight to 12 weeks for both sides combined to present their cases. Trial was to begin, now held in abeyance pending resolution of appeal.
2/2/24 Update: Trump’s March 4, 2024 trial date on charges of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election has been dropped from the public calendar of the federal court in Washington, a sign of what has long been anticipated — that his claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would delay his trial while it remains on appeal. The change did not appear on the official criminal case docket before U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who has made clear since Trump filed his appeal on 12/7/23 that all trial deadlines would be suspended while he challenges the case.
2/5/24 Update: Administration of written questionnaire to prospective jurors-VACATED. March 4, 2024 trial is VACATED. The court will set a new schedule if & when the mandate is returned signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/2/24.
2/6/24 Update: Appeal (23-3228) - U.S. Court of Appeals (DC Circuit), Henderson, Childs & Pan, Circuit Judges. We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed. We conclude that “[c]oncerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government” compel the rejection of his claim of immunity in this case. We also have considered his contention that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly “official” action that he took as President — a contention that is unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution. Finally, we are unpersuaded by his argument that this prosecution is barred by “double jeopardy principles.” Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. “We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes…Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.” “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” the court wrote.
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 84,334
- Reaction score
- 281,816
Again - my mistake - there IS a hearing - oral arguments - today
On the docket: 14th amendment oral arguments |
You’re reading the Guardian US’s free Trump on Trial newsletter. To get the latest court developments delivered to your inbox, sign up here. The US supreme court meets today to hear oral arguments on whether the 14th amendment of the constitution bars the former president Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot in Colorado and other states because of his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. The case is unprecedented: the clause has rarely been used since it became part of the constitution after the civil war in 1868, and it has never before been applied to a former president. The oral arguments are expected to be something of a free-for-all, with nine justices asking about a bevy of unresolved constitutional issues. And the justices’ questions on Thursday could hint at exactly how they might rule. this is front The Guardian - I have no link though - it came in an email. |
dmac55
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,806
- Reaction score
- 8,431
The blue colored words in your post take me to the article
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 84,334
- Reaction score
- 281,816
The blue colored words in your post take me to the articleoo
Oh good! Thanks for that info!
Just read about the oral arguments re Colorado decision - does not look like the Supreme court is going for it.....
Oh good! Thanks for that info!
Just read about the oral arguments re Colorado decision - does not look like the Supreme court is going for it.....
I was disappointed that some of the so-called liberal judges were in agreement with the conservatives. Turns out there's only one liberal judge on SCOTUS - Sotomayor. I don't think we'll see a balanced court again in my lifetime. I really regret that and blame members of both parties. JMO
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 84,334
- Reaction score
- 281,816
@Seattle1 - I have your name as a reference - can you access the DC court site? Wondering if there is a next hearing yet on this case. Hopefully, it is not the same link as I have?
I have 2 -
and this one:
www.courtlistener.com
but on this ^^ I can not access Pacer - I believe that is where you get your info - ?? TIA if you can help me!
I have 2 -
and this one:
United States v. TRUMP, 1:23-cr-00257 - CourtListener.com
Docket for United States v. TRUMP, 1:23-cr-00257 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
but on this ^^ I can not access Pacer - I believe that is where you get your info - ?? TIA if you can help me!
musicaljoke
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2013
- Messages
- 7,157
- Reaction score
- 37,433
Court decisions should have nothing whatsoever to do with the judges political affiliations. Judges are in place to interpret the law and should be completely non-partisan. Mistrust of the Supreme Court is just another casualty of the current political problems in which people are constantly pointing to the political appointments as if that is the source of the judge's rulings.
Let's hope that the Supreme Court judges can make intelligent, non-political decisions. This may be the last Supreme Court to rule impartially on matters of law. Appointing judges through political affiliation is a system that is bound to fail.
It would have been great if they could do that, but seems unlikely. There are too many conflicts of interest with some of these cases. Conflicts that previous courts handled ethically and professionally.
Some serious reform studies have suggested setting term limits for SCOTUS justices, also expanding the court by a couple more seats.
Same groups studied the possibility of expanding the number of seats in the House of Representatives, JMO a good idea. That was the practice until a change in 1929. Needs to be restored so members of Congress represent smaller districts so they can be more in touch with constituents and candidates have greater opportunities to run.
When It Comes to the House, Bigger Might Be Better
Read the latest by Democracy Docket.
www.democracydocket.com
BBM. I totally agree with you. I also believe a Judge's decisions should have nothing to do with their religious beliefs. It is essential all Court judges clearly respect the separation of church and state. Overturning Roe v Wade is a sign to me that our system is incredibly dysfunctional.
A Judge is making sure Peter Navarro is headed to prison. I don't know the Judge's political affiliation and don't care. It is the right decision because Navarro was one of the "architects" who met at the Willard Hotel prior to Jan. 6th. He is one of the leaders of the Trump "cult."
JMO
Judge rejects Peter Navarro’s bid to remain out of jail while he appeals contempt conviction
If the ruling holds, Navarro may be the first member of Trump’s inner circle to go to prison for crimes stemming from the effort to subvert the 2020 election.
www.politico.com
Steve Bannon, political strategist for Donald Trump, urged appeals court to overturn Jan. 6 contempt conviction
Steve Bannon, a political strategist for Donald Trump, urged a federal appeals court to overturn his conviction for defying a congressional subpoena.
www.usatoday.com
sunshineray
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 7,535
- Reaction score
- 57,194
Does that mean he can't stand in Times Square, kill somebody and not be arrested? Just curious
Stunned
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 6,281
- Reaction score
- 43,997
You would think so...... but I really don't know anything when it comes to 45 anymore. Looking back, I never have...EXCEPT, he and his band of traitorous morons have done everything in their power to destroy the very moral and constitutional grounds this country was supposed to be built on. That and he should be in prison for treason. IMO
Smelly Squirrel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 3,813
- Reaction score
- 17,471
Trump asks Supreme Court to block ‘immunity’ ruling
The 39-page motion puts the fate of his criminal case in Washington, D.C. squarely in the hands of the nine justices.
www.politico.com
Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to block a lower court’s ruling that he is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his bid to subvert the 2020 election.
The 39-page motion puts the fate of his criminal case in Washington, D.C. squarely in the hands of the nine justices, three of whom he nominated.
Smelly Squirrel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 3,813
- Reaction score
- 17,471
But Smith likes to file his pleadings early.
Last edited:
Smelly Squirrel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 3,813
- Reaction score
- 17,471
Smith wasted no time, and has already filed his response.
www.politico.com
Special counsel Jack Smith urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to quickly put Donald Trump’s federal election-subversion trial back on track to reach a jury this year.
The case has been on hold since December, as Trump has pressed his claim that he is immune from the criminal charges for his bid to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden. A district court judge and a federal appeals court panel in Washington, D.C. both rejected Trump’s immunity claim, issuing resounding and landmark rulings that said the former president should not be protected from prosecution.
Trump on Monday asked the Supreme Court to block those lower court rulings, and Chief Justice John Roberts gave Smith until next week to respond. But Smith took just two days to lodge a 40-page filing with the high court, arguing that the court should reject Trump’s gambit and send the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan so that it can proceed quickly to trial.
“The public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former President is charged with conspiring to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office,” Smith and his team wrote. “The Nation has a compelling interest in seeing the charges brought to trial.”
The trial was originally scheduled to begin on March 4, but the delays caused by Trump’s immunity appeals prompted Chutkan to call off that date.
The justices are set to meet on Friday in private to discuss pending cases. How they handle Trump’s request may determine whether he can face trial on the federal election charges in 2024, while he seeks a second term in the White House. Smith has repeatedly emphasized the public’s interest in a speedy resolution of the case, but he has never formally articulated a scenario that he and the justices are surely aware of: If Trump retakes the presidency, he is certain to unravel the case against him — either by appointing an attorney who would drop the charges or by attempting to pardon himself.
Special counsel urges Supreme Court to end Trump’s delay of federal election trial
“There is a national interest in seeing the crimes alleged in this case resolved promptly,” Jack Smith wrote.
www.politico.com
Special counsel Jack Smith urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to quickly put Donald Trump’s federal election-subversion trial back on track to reach a jury this year.
The case has been on hold since December, as Trump has pressed his claim that he is immune from the criminal charges for his bid to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden. A district court judge and a federal appeals court panel in Washington, D.C. both rejected Trump’s immunity claim, issuing resounding and landmark rulings that said the former president should not be protected from prosecution.
Trump on Monday asked the Supreme Court to block those lower court rulings, and Chief Justice John Roberts gave Smith until next week to respond. But Smith took just two days to lodge a 40-page filing with the high court, arguing that the court should reject Trump’s gambit and send the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan so that it can proceed quickly to trial.
“The public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former President is charged with conspiring to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office,” Smith and his team wrote. “The Nation has a compelling interest in seeing the charges brought to trial.”
The trial was originally scheduled to begin on March 4, but the delays caused by Trump’s immunity appeals prompted Chutkan to call off that date.
The justices are set to meet on Friday in private to discuss pending cases. How they handle Trump’s request may determine whether he can face trial on the federal election charges in 2024, while he seeks a second term in the White House. Smith has repeatedly emphasized the public’s interest in a speedy resolution of the case, but he has never formally articulated a scenario that he and the justices are surely aware of: If Trump retakes the presidency, he is certain to unravel the case against him — either by appointing an attorney who would drop the charges or by attempting to pardon himself.