ADVERTISEMENT

It’s indictment time again….

So it doesn't appear as if the GOP pro-Impeachment media blitz has been a roaring success. Morning Consult has been tracking the issue monthly, and even among Pubs the push to Impeach has lost ground...

In Sept among all voters pro Impeachment sentiment led 47-38, and in the Dec survey it's gone down to 44-40 in that demographic...

Indep in Sept were 43-33 (pro), but now they are 43-37 anti. A near 100% reversal...

And Pubs have lost enthusiasm as well. going from 76-11% pro to 70-14% pro... No sign of that decreasing 6% on this board, as far as I can tell...;)

Meanwhile, Oversight Committee Dems have released a series of "fact sheets" addressing spcific issues the Pubs have tied to present as evidence of corruption. Hopefully these links will work...

Click here to read the fact sheet on obstruction.



Click here to read the fact sheet on the Burisma lie.



Click here to read the fact sheet on Joe Biden’s loans to his brother.



Click here to read the fact sheet on the $3.5 million transaction between Devon Archer and Yelena Baturina, the wife of the former Mayor of Moscow.

https://oversightdemocrats.house.go...peachment-inquiry-fact-sheets-debunking-false
Biden or Kamala. Rock and a hard place.

It's better for Republicans to let Biden continue to implode, but bad for the country, which is being run by leftist committee.

But Kamala....... It's no-win for the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
Another genius response. For every one you list, there are 20 from Trump. And the fact that you deny that is, well, just not very bright.
Another baseless claim from you. Do you ever get tired of being a male version of Hickory?
 
I haven’t forgotten how absolutely clueless you are and so easily duped. #2000mules. lol
Oh burn - replying to me with the same words I first used in reply to you.

That shows a complete lack of intellect. Not surprised.
 
Tell me the case is 100% political without saying it's 100% political.




Start crying.

 
Start crying.

I thought it was noteworthy that both SCOTUS and the Appeals court both agreed to hear Smith's request to expedite the immunity issue, within hours after he made it. That would appear to indicate that they were not shocked by the move, and may have actually anticipated it would happen.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
I thought it was noteworthy that both SCOTUS and the Appeals court both agreed to hear Smith's request to expedite the immunity issue, within hours after he made it. That would appear to indicate that they were not shocked by the move, and may have actually anticipated it would happen.
Why would the Appeals court hear it if the Supreme Court is going to hear it?

Smith didn't even appeal to the Court of Appeals, which is the normal process.

This is entirely a political stunt to try to get a trial in before the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbmhoosier
Any political candidate's guilt or innocence with respect to felony charges is an important matter to get resolved, before that political candidate next runs for elected office, if at all possible.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Ohio Guy and DANC
Biden or Kamala. Rock and a hard place.

It's better for Republicans to let Biden continue to implode, but bad for the country, which is being run by leftist committee.

But Kamala....... It's no-win for the country.
That's a decently reasoned reply, but the problem is it doesn't accurately portray the timeline involved. If we were heading into 2023 then fear of Kamala replacing an impeached and convicted Biden would be rational if rather wacky...

But with all of the various breaks upcoming and the full calendar there is simply not enough time to impeach Biden (much less have a Senate trial ending in conviction/removal from office before the 2024 election. Primaries begin in 2 or 3 months and every House member is on the ballot. That means they don't have time to sit thru lengthy impeachment hearings and mount their own re-election campaigns as well...

But the purpose of these attempts at impeachment isn't to oust Biden, it's to attempt to deflect from Trump's legal woes. The strategy is to lessen the importance of Trump's two impeachments by trying ry to establish some false equivalency from what Trump did, and what some within the GOP are accusing Biden of doing.

Why do you think Trump's legal strategy is not to maintain he didn't commit the acts in question? He's not going to be able to discredit multiple witnesses of the caliber who will testify under oath to what they witnessed.

His only "defense" is going to be to claim he had presidential immunity. That's why Smith is seeking a final ruling on that issue beforehand. There is no reason to go thru the expanse of time and money to try and possibly convict if SCOTUS is going to agree with Trump and basically nullify verdicts jurors reach.

I don't think that will happen because while I do believe there are some justices who subscribe to the concept of absolute Presidential power and immunity I don't think there are 5. But we'll see what happens...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
Any political candidate's guilt or innocence with respect to felony charges is an important matter to get resolved, before that political candidate next runs for elected office, if at all possible.
Yes, by all means, subvert the rule of law for politics.

Oh, but I forgot - only leftists can determine who is fit to run for office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbmhoosier
That's a decently reasoned reply, but the problem is it doesn't accurately portray the timeline involved. If we were heading into 2023 then fear of Kamala replacing an impeached and convicted Biden would be rational if rather wacky...

But with all of the various breaks upcoming and the full calendar there is simply not enough time to impeach Biden (much less have a Senate trial ending in conviction/removal from office before the 2024 election. Primaries begin in 2 or 3 months and every House member is on the ballot. That means they don't have time to sit thru lengthy impeachment hearings and mount their own re-election campaigns as well...

But the purpose of these attempts at impeachment isn't to oust Biden, it's to attempt to deflect from Trump's legal woes. The strategy is to lessen the importance of Trump's two impeachments by trying ry to establish some false equivalency from what Trump did, and what some within the GOP are accusing Biden of doing.

Why do you think Trump's legal strategy is not to maintain he didn't commit the acts in question? He's not going to be able to discredit multiple witnesses of the caliber who will testify under oath to what they witnessed.

His only "defense" is going to be to claim he had presidential immunity. That's why Smith is seeking a final ruling on that issue beforehand. There is no reason to go thru the expanse of time and money to try and possibly convict if SCOTUS is going to agree with Trump and basically nullify verdicts jurors reach.

I don't think that will happen because while I do believe there are some justices who subscribe to the concept of absolute Presidential power and immunity I don't think there are 5. But we'll see what happens...
No, that's not his only defense, but I enjoy you doing your usual writing gymnastics to avoid the point that this prosecution is entirely political.

Are you still trying to claim Smith went to the Appeals court? lmao
 
Why would the Appeals court hear it if the Supreme Court is going to hear it?

Smith didn't even appeal to the Court of Appeals, which is the normal process.

This is entirely a political stunt to try to get a trial in before the election.
From my understanding, one option SCOTUS could have is to refer it to the Appeals Court. I believe what Smith has asked for is that in the case that should happen, he is appealing to the Appeals Court to expedite the process and not let it drag on for years...

Incidentally Smith used the precedent of the Nixon Tapes ruling to establish the fact that in previous cases SCOTUS has agreed to decide this type of emergency Constitutional crisis and leapfrog the appelate process.. It's a powerful enough issue that SCOTUS has agreed to expedite a hearing on whether or not they will hear arguments on taking the case early or not...

I doubt if even Smith thought SCOTUS would reply the same day, much less within 3 hours of his filing...A lot of speculation that SCOTUS is interested in deciding this case and establishing a predent for future Chief Executives and what they can and cannot do...
 
Any political candidate's guilt or innocence with respect to felony charges is an important matter to get resolved, before that political candidate next runs for elected office, if at all possible.
That applies equally to members of each party. I recall Al Franken's accusations moved rapidly and his resignation coming, in advance of a reelection bid.
 
No, that's not his only defense, but I enjoy you doing your usual writing gymnastics to avoid the point that this prosecution is entirely political.

Are you still trying to claim Smith went to the Appeals court? lmao
Are you still trying to claim Smith went to the Appeals court? lmao
Laughing your ass off at facts? Where exactly do you gt your "news"? You may want to consider tapping into another source, because you're disputing facts that were reported yesterday.

This video is over 18 hours old. If you aren't interested in hearing an actual attorney explain about the events of yesterday and their significance you can skip ahead. The relevant parts regarding Smith's filing with the Appeals Court start around 3:50 in. You'll hear a discussion of Smith informing SCOTUS of his intention to concurrently file with the Appeals Court. Then if you FF to about the 9 min mark you'll see a copy of the DC Court's REPLY to the Smith filing, that apparently you aren't aware of.

In fact you'll see that both SCOTUS AND the Appeals Court have directed Trump to reply to Smith's motion. In fact the DC Appelate court has directed Trump to present his opposition to an expedited hearing by Wed/Thur of THIS week...





Don't laugh so hard (at facts) that you lose your ass forever. That would literally leave you full of shit...
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
The trial timeline is absolutely impacted by the timing of the election cycle.

That doesn't make it a biased, politically-motivated proscecution, however. It is very rational to do your best to let voters know if a candidate is actually a felon or not. If a prominent Democrat, Independent, or Republican were facing quite literally DOZENS of felony charges and yet running for political office, there would be a similarly strong motivation to get to the proper and just verdict in a timely manner.

if anything, politicians get too much slack. We knew all about George Santos's lies for well over a year.
 
From my understanding, one option SCOTUS could have is to refer it to the Appeals Court. I believe what Smith has asked for is that in the case that should happen, he is appealing to the Appeals Court to expedite the process and not let it drag on for years...

Incidentally Smith used the precedent of the Nixon Tapes ruling to establish the fact that in previous cases SCOTUS has agreed to decide this type of emergency Constitutional crisis and leapfrog the appelate process.. It's a powerful enough issue that SCOTUS has agreed to expedite a hearing on whether or not they will hear arguments on taking the case early or not...

I doubt if even Smith thought SCOTUS would reply the same day, much less within 3 hours of his filing...A lot of speculation that SCOTUS is interested in deciding this case and establishing a predent for future Chief Executives and what they can and cannot do...
Laughing your ass off at facts? Where exactly do you gt your "news"? You may want to consider tapping into another source, because you're disputing facts that were reported yesterday.

This video is over 18 hours old. If you aren't interested in hearing an actual attorney explain about the events of yesterday and their significance you can skip ahead. The relevant parts regarding Smith's filing with the Appeals Court start around 3:50 in. You'll hear a discussion of Smith informing SCOTUS of his intention to concurrently file with the Appeals Court. Then if you FF to about the 9 min mark you'll see a copy of the DC Court's REPLY to the Smith filing, that apparently you aren't aware of.

In fact you'll see that both SCOTUS AND the Appeals Court have directed Trump to reply to Smith's motion. In fact the DC Appelate court has directed Trump to present his opposition to an expedited hearing by Wed/Thur of THIS week...





Don't laugh so hard (at facts) that you lose your ass forever. That would literally leave you full of shit...
I laugh my ass off because you post yet another opinion piece, while the entire world understands that Smity bypassed the Appeals court. Even CNN proves you're full of shit.

"Smith is asking the Supreme Court to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly decide a fundamental issue of the case against Trump."


You don't even know what you're listening to. This says they filed with the Appeals Court to expedite proceedings - not to rule on the validity of executive prosecution. Of course, I realize that probably blows your pea brain because you don't understand the difference.
 
Last edited:
I laugh my ass off because you post yet another opinion piece, while the entire world understands that Smity bypassed the Appeals court. Even CNN proves you're full of shit.

"Smith is asking the Supreme Court to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly decide a fundamental issue of the case against Trump."


You don't even know what you're listening to. This says they filed with the Appeals Court to expedite proceedings - not to rule on the validity of executive prosecution. Of course, I realize that probably blows your pea brain because you don't understand the difference.
"I laugh my ass off because you post yet another opinion piece, while the entire world understands that Smity bypassed the Appeals court. Even CNN proves you're full of shit."

I NEVER DISPUTED that. There is nothing in my post that asserts anything other than That he CONCURRENTLY (I use that term,btw) filed with BOTH Courts yesterday.

That reading comprehension issue of yours rearing it's ugly head again. You create red herrings and then argue against them...


"You don't even know what you're listening to. This says they filed with the Appeals Court to expedite proceedings - not to rule on the validity of executive prosecution. Of course, I realize that probably blows your pea brain because you don't understand the difference."

I KNOW he filed with the Appeals Court to expedite the process of HEARING the arguments , in the event that SCOTUS refers it back to the Appeals Court rather than decide to take it now. It's excatly what I SAID...

"From my understanding, one option SCOTUS could have is to refer it to the Appeals Court. I believe what Smith has asked for is that in the case that should happen, he is appealing to the Appeals Court to expedite the process and not let it drag on for years..."

That's from my initial post, to which you replied that you were (lmfa) at my claim that Smith had filed with the Appeals Court.

I then proceeded to link the video which described how he did exactly that. There was even a bulletin at the 10 min mark, which revealed that the Court of Appeals had agreed to entertain the idea of expediting the process,and had given Trump till Wed?Thurs of this week to RESPOND to Smiths request to expedite.

I NEVER said that either SCOTUS or the Appeals Court had ruled, just that both had notified Trump to respond to Smith (which amonts to Trump presenting an argument as to why the process should not be expedited.) Again, this what I WROTE, not the fantasy argument you CREATED and claimed I made...


" You'll hear a discussion of Smith informing SCOTUS of his intention to concurrently file with the Appeals Court. Then if you FF to about the 9 min mark you'll see a copy of the DC Court's REPLY to the Smith filing, that apparently you aren't aware of.

In fact you'll see that
both SCOTUS AND the Appeals Court have directed Trump to reply to Smith's motion. In fact the DC Appelate court has directed Trump to present his opposition to an expedited hearing by Wed/Thur of THIS week..."

Now the red are my exact quotes. If you want to criticize the FACTS that I posted, knock yourself out. But please refrain from trying to assign false statements to me that I never made, in order to try and pretend I don't understand the situation. That should be beneath you...
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
You lose your career and are legally punished in the military for mishandling classified information, as you should be. Trumpster hypocrites give our previous President a pass and defend the indefensible. It really does disgust me.

 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
"I laugh my ass off because you post yet another opinion piece, while the entire world understands that Smity bypassed the Appeals court. Even CNN proves you're full of shit."

I NEVER DISPUTED that. There is nothing in my post that asserts anything other than That he CONCURRENTLY (I use that term,btw) filed with BOTH Courts yesterday.

That reading comprehension issue of yours rearing it's ugly head again. You create red herrings and then argue against them...


"You don't even know what you're listening to. This says they filed with the Appeals Court to expedite proceedings - not to rule on the validity of executive prosecution. Of course, I realize that probably blows your pea brain because you don't understand the difference."

I KNOW he filed with the Appeals Court to expedite the process of HEARING the arguments , in the event that SCOTUS refers it back to the Appeals Court rather than decide to take it now. It's excatly what I SAID...

"From my understanding, one option SCOTUS could have is to refer it to the Appeals Court. I believe what Smith has asked for is that in the case that should happen, he is appealing to the Appeals Court to expedite the process and not let it drag on for years..."

That's from my initial post, to which you replied that you were (lmfa) at my claim that Smith had filed with the Appeals Court.

I then proceeded to link the video which described how he did exactly that. There was even a bulletin at the 10 min mark, which revealed that the Court of Appeals had agreed to entertain the idea of expediting the process,and had given Trump till Wed?Thurs of this week to RESPOND to Smiths request to expedite.

I NEVER said that either SCOTUS or the Appeals Court had ruled, just that both had notified Trump to respond to Smith (which amonts to Trump presenting an argument as to why the process should not be expedited.) Again, this what I WROTE, not the fantasy argument you CREATED and claimed I made...


" You'll hear a discussion of Smith informing SCOTUS of his intention to concurrently file with the Appeals Court. Then if you FF to about the 9 min mark you'll see a copy of the DC Court's REPLY to the Smith filing, that apparently you aren't aware of.

In fact you'll see that
both SCOTUS AND the Appeals Court have directed Trump to reply to Smith's motion. In fact the DC Appelate court has directed Trump to present his opposition to an expedited hearing by Wed/Thur of THIS week..."

Now the red are my exact quotes. If you want to criticize the FACTS that I posted, knock yourself out. But please refrain from trying to assign false statements to me that I never made, in order to try and pretend I don't understand the situation. That should be beneath you...
I love to see yourself twisted into knots when you try to wriggle out of admitting you were wrong. You claimed he went to both the Appelate process and the Supreme Court like it was the same appeal.

The fact is, as proved by the CNN link I posted, is that Smith bypassed the Appeals courts in his plea to the SC to hear his case. He's desperate and getting nervous he won't be the big hero and convict Trump before the election. This is a Hail Mary on his part and yet, even if the SC rules in his favor, he still has to win the case - which he won't.

I love how Leftists turn into Constitution originalists on this subject when Mueller couldn't find anything to charge Trump and then they said they couldn't charge him anyway because he was President. lmao Too funny.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ButHerEmails
I love to see yourself twisted into knots when you try to wriggle out of admitting you were wrong. You claimed he went to both the Appelate process and the Supreme Court like it was the same appeal.

The fact is, as proved by the CNN link I posted, is that Smith bypassed the Appeals courts in his plea to the SC to hear his case. He's desperate and getting nervous he won't be the big hero and convict Trump before the election. This is a Hail Mary on his part and yet, even if the SC rules in his favor, he still has to win the case - which he won't.

I love how Leftists turn into Constitution originalists on this subject when Mueller couldn't find anything to charge Trump and then they said they couldn't charge him anyway because he was President. lmao Too funny.
I posted what I said. Feel free to try and equate what I posted, with the claims you are making here. Where in the world did I say it was the "same appeal"? Why would I make such a ridiculous claim...

I said it was concurrent. When Smith filed with SCOTUS he INFORMED SCOTUS that he was going to also file with the Appeals Court to expedite the process IF SCOTUS were to kick it back to the Appeals Court.

In other words Smith put it solely in the hands of SCOTUS and now everyone waits on their decision. They may agree to hear arguments , they may decide it is not a matter they wish to weigh in on, and they may kick it back to the Appeals Court for a preliminary decision and then decide whether they will entertain an appeal from whichever side loses in the Appelate Court.

Trump's task this week is to address the issue of an expedited process if SCOTUS decides to send it back to the Appeals Court. Smith argued that if the case should be remanded to the Appeals Court, that the Appeals Court should act expeditiously. Trump's strategy is to delay, so he has to try and convince the Appeals Court not to move the appeal to the top of their list, should SCOTUS send it down for a ruling. He can't really say he's trying to delay the trial till after the election, so he has to think of another plausible reason to ask the Appelate court to slow walk the process...

But that may all be moot,depending on what SCOTUS decides. If they agree to hear the case before trial and Trump can garner 5 votes to agree he has total immunity, then there likely won't be any trials. However if they reject that immunity claim, then the concept is ruled inapplicable as a defense strategy and Trump won't be able to use it.

You'd think knowing a win at SCOTUS would basically end the trials, that Trump would be eager to have SCOTUS rule on his theory. But strangely enough he doesn't want that to happen.

By agreeing to entertain Smith's filing, both SCOTUS and the Apelate Court have basically put the onus on Trump to convince them of why he does not want the procedures to proceed judiciously. He lost the motion with the trial judge and her ruling was confirmed by the Circuit court. Trump has chosen to appeal, and every one knows that if he loses in the Apellate Court he'll appeal to SCOTUS. So what he has to convince SCOTUS of, is why they shouldn't decide the question he wants them to ultimately decide now.

I don't think admitting he wants to prolong and delay the trial till after the election would be a wise move. SCOTUS is clearly entertaining the case Smith presented for expediency, and it only took them a couple of hours to reply. So it's up to Trump to convince them that expediting the process does not make sense. It will be interesting to see what kind of argument his legal team comes up with...

It's interesting. You want to impeach Biden for acts you claim he committed while VP or a private citizen, and yet at the same time you want to declare that Trump is immune from being prosecuted for acts he committed as POTUS. It's hard to draw a distinction, because once the precedent of Presidential immunity is set, it applies to Biden as well as Trump.

So Biden could break the law for the remainder of his term and there would not be any possible way to prosecute him. It would basically eliminate the concept of Impeachment from the realm of possibility for any future POTUS, because it would have to be recognized as a blatantly political act.

You can try that, but once the precedent is set it automatically gives cover for a member of either party to vote for or against impeachment based solely on their political party. You can't ever charge a POTUS with a crime, which means you would basically have to admit that you want to Impeach a current POTUS because he belongs to the opposite political party.
 
I posted what I said. Feel free to try and equate what I posted, with the claims you are making here. Where in the world did I say it was the "same appeal"? Why would I make such a ridiculous claim...

I said it was concurrent. When Smith filed with SCOTUS he INFORMED SCOTUS that he was going to also file with the Appeals Court to expedite the process IF SCOTUS were to kick it back to the Appeals Court.

In other words Smith put it solely in the hands of SCOTUS and now everyone waits on their decision. They may agree to hear arguments , they may decide it is not a matter they wish to weigh in on, and they may kick it back to the Appeals Court for a preliminary decision and then decide whether they will entertain an appeal from whichever side loses in the Appelate Court.

Trump's task this week is to address the issue of an expedited process if SCOTUS decides to send it back to the Appeals Court. Smith argued that if the case should be remanded to the Appeals Court, that the Appeals Court should act expeditiously. Trump's strategy is to delay, so he has to try and convince the Appeals Court not to move the appeal to the top of their list, should SCOTUS send it down for a ruling. He can't really say he's trying to delay the trial till after the election, so he has to think of another plausible reason to ask the Appelate court to slow walk the process...

But that may all be moot,depending on what SCOTUS decides. If they agree to hear the case before trial and Trump can garner 5 votes to agree he has total immunity, then there likely won't be any trials. However if they reject that immunity claim, then the concept is ruled inapplicable as a defense strategy and Trump won't be able to use it.

You'd think knowing a win at SCOTUS would basically end the trials, that Trump would be eager to have SCOTUS rule on his theory. But strangely enough he doesn't want that to happen.

By agreeing to entertain Smith's filing, both SCOTUS and the Apelate Court have basically put the onus on Trump to convince them of why he does not want the procedures to proceed judiciously. He lost the motion with the trial judge and her ruling was confirmed by the Circuit court. Trump has chosen to appeal, and every one knows that if he loses in the Apellate Court he'll appeal to SCOTUS. So what he has to convince SCOTUS of, is why they shouldn't decide the question he wants them to ultimately decide now.

I don't think admitting he wants to prolong and delay the trial till after the election would be a wise move. SCOTUS is clearly entertaining the case Smith presented for expediency, and it only took them a couple of hours to reply. So it's up to Trump to convince them that expediting the process does not make sense. It will be interesting to see what kind of argument his legal team comes up with...

It's interesting. You want to impeach Biden for acts you claim he committed while VP or a private citizen, and yet at the same time you want to declare that Trump is immune from being prosecuted for acts he committed as POTUS. It's hard to draw a distinction, because once the precedent of Presidential immunity is set, it applies to Biden as well as Trump.

So Biden could break the law for the remainder of his term and there would not be any possible way to prosecute him. It would basically eliminate the concept of Impeachment from the realm of possibility for any future POTUS, because it would have to be recognized as a blatantly political act.

You can try that, but once the precedent is set it automatically gives cover for a member of either party to vote for or against impeachment based solely on their political party. You can't ever charge a POTUS with a crime, which means you would basically have to admit that you want to Impeach a current POTUS because he belongs to the opposite political party.
Imnpeachment isnt a crime its been done and no crime came at all. Impeachment is a political tool at best. Biden will never ever be prosecuted no matter what so sure trump wants it kicked back and it likely will be. I would be stunned about any trial happening at all. No matter how bad you want to get trump cause you hate him thats your deal but i doubt the supremes will simply just rule without kicking it back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Imnpeachment isnt a crime its been done and no crime came at all. Impeachment is a political tool at best. Biden will never ever be prosecuted no matter what so sure trump wants it kicked back and it likely will be. I would be stunned about any trial happening at all. No matter how bad you want to get trump cause you hate him thats your deal but i doubt the supremes will simply just rule without kicking it back.
This has nothing to do with Biden. It’s about Trump’s federal trial. Stand by for major disappointment.
 
Imnpeachment isnt a crime its been done and no crime came at all. Impeachment is a political tool at best. Biden will never ever be prosecuted no matter what so sure trump wants it kicked back and it likely will be. I would be stunned about any trial happening at all. No matter how bad you want to get trump cause you hate him thats your deal but i doubt the supremes will simply just rule without kicking it back.
I said it gave cover to people who want to freely admit they are voting (on Impeachment) on a party basis instead of wrongdoing. If you give a Chief Executive carte blanche to commit illegal acts and face no consequences, then you basically eliminate any bi partisan act of Impeachment..."Illegal acts" no longer exist, in the context of a POTUS...

It's complicated and maybe I didn't express myself very clearly. But a brand new Amicus brief filed by Republicans from previous administrations, some of whom freely admit to subscribing to the unitary executive doctrine (which many Pubs,including Trump advocate) was filed yesterday endorsing and enhancing Judge Chutkan's ruling on executive priviledge.

I say enhance, because these former GOP officials have pointed to what they view as a Constituional basis to reject Trump's claim of "absolute immunity in a criminal case" by virtue of the Executive Vesting Clause, which is an additional legal argument that Chutkan did not raise in her decision...

Again some of these former officials advocate for a wide ranging powerful Presidency in general. Yet even they argue that by his actions to forcefully remain in power following his loss that Trump has violated that aspect of the Constitution...
(Article II, Section 1,Clause 1).

Some of these people may have actually voted for Trump. But they all indicate their strong belief that some of his actions are more reflective of a dictatorship than a Constitutionaly prescribed Presidency with vested powers. Of course the Appellate Court may or may not choose to value or even read the opinions these Amici have submitted. But it's a very noteworthy development...





As to your comment about "being stunned", I could say that's not really surprising considering your (lack of) political acumen and the fact that you're still waiting on the "red wave". But I won't...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
Start crying.

😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩



 
Last edited:
It's been hours since the last update on what random right wing twitter morons are getting worked up about.

dmb, surely you can find some post by a some retired worm breeder with insights on the "Biden crime famly".

Get at it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: T.M.P.
Won't be a trial before the election. Cry more.

Don't be so sure. I'll bet there will be, and you won't stop crying. This probably won't have a major effect on the documents case because it's primarily about what happened after the election. It doesn't even cover everything in the other cases.

Why are you so desperate to not have a trial before the election? Are you seriously OK with electing a likely felon to the Presidency? Talk about being a banana republic. That's practically the definition.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
Won't be a trial before the election. Cry more.

Actually I believe that a suggestion that one of either this trial or the documents case won't be tried before the 2024 election is premature. The COA took a very fast track approach to their directives on the original appeal, and have already scheduled oral arguments o be heard on Jan 9. Smith anticipated SCOTUS rejecting his request and planned accordingly...

The DC trial was set to start on March 4 and MAL is set for May 20. With the accelerated schedule by the DC COA they will likely issue a ruling by March 4, which means SCOTUS will have the appeal (assuming Trump loses) shortly after the ruling comes down. The Trump argument against a :quick decision" will be rebdered useless if it;s Trump, not Jack Smith appealing the COA ruling...

Now many analysts believe that Cannon has been trying to delay the trial in FL, and that ultimately she will procrastinate to the point where her trial is delayed at he last minute, and due to the jampacked calendar that delay will push everything else back till after the election. But again Smith anticipated that, and while Team Trump is playing checkers, Smith is playing world class chess.

Earlier this week Smith informed Cannon that if the trial is going to start on the (tentatively) scheduled May 20 date, that various procedures regarding CIPA and other issues need to be put on the calendar. He also notified her that the initial jury questionaires need to be mailed out, and set a deadline of Feb 2 for the parties to submit their proposals...

Of course Trump argued the exact opposite, and in doing so basically fell into Smith's trap. Up until now Cannon has refused to set any firm dates, so now she has a choice. Rule in favor of Trump which means her trial is pushed back and the DC trial can fill the vacated space that is opened up. Or agree to start setting dates (and piss off Trump) which means there will be no legal basis to delay the MAL trial past it's scheduled start date.

 
Yes, by all means, subvert the rule of law for politics.

Oh, but I forgot - only leftists can determine who is fit to run for office.
You're not even coherent anymore. If there really was a landslide of Democrat corruption, surely one of the all-red radical Republican Trumpist prosecutors in the country could root it out, publicly.

There isn't, so they haven't.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT