Deranged Jack Smith drops all charges

[DANC]

Oh that’s what I’ve read. It’s not that way in practice?

Did you hear it on Serius/XM? It must be true!

 

[twenty02]

Scores of legal scholars and litigators are wrong with their immunity arguments. As soon as the trial court mucked it up, I said on this forum she was wrong said the issue was going to the supremes, and also said what the result would be. That is exactly what happened. Not because I’m smart, but because the answer is clear, simple, and obvious to any lawyer with half a brain and isn’t driven by never-Trumpism. The three CA judges and three Supreme dissenters, along with many “experts” just don’t get it, including special counsel Jack Smith.

You routinely defend a man who abuses the hell out of the judicial system

FIRE’s defense of pollster J. Ann Selzer against Donald Trump’s lawsuit is First Amendment 101

A polling miss isn’t ‘consumer fraud’ or ‘election interference’ — it’s just a prediction and is protected by the First Amendment.

www.thefire.org

 

[CO. Hoosier]

O

You routinely defend a man who abuses the hell out of the judicial system

FIRE’s defense of pollster J. Ann Selzer against Donald Trump’s lawsuit is First Amendment 101

A polling miss isn’t ‘consumer fraud’ or ‘election interference’ — it’s just a prediction and is protected by the First Amendment.

www.thefire.org

Calling out a court of appeals for an awful opinion about official immunity is not “defending” Trump.

FWIW, I think SCOTUS was correct by refusing to entertain Trump’s last minute effort to stop the sentencing hearing in NY state court(even though I think the underlying case is hogwash).