|
Post by onelasttime on Dec 11, 2023 18:15:57 GMT
This morning Jack Smith asked that question of the Supreme Court. Democracy Docket… ”BREAKING: In the DC election subversion case, Jack Smith asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on whether Donald Trump is immune from criminal charges for actions he took as president. Smith asks the Court to rule quickly so trial can proceed in March.” x.com/democracydocket/status/1734274010538541322?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Dec 11, 2023 18:18:43 GMT
linkIMO Presidents don’t when it comes to potential criminal acts. Depending on how the Conservative majority rules we will see if Hillary was right in 2016. CNN Politics…. From March 2016 ”Clinton takes aim at Trump in Supreme Court speech”“Madison, Wisconsin CNN — Hillary Clinton on Monday blasted Republicans who regularly “bemoan” the rise of Donald Trump, their party’s presidential front-runner, while also allowing the GOP to “make the extreme normal” in politics and in Congress. The former secretary of state, campaigning in Wisconsin ahead of the state’s primary on April 5, urged voters at the University of Wisconsin-Madison to make the Supreme Court a voting issue, while showing that she is keeping close tabs on the Republican presidential race. “Donald Trump hasn’t come out of nowhere. What the Republicans have sown with their extremist tactics, they are now reaping with Donald Trump’s candidacy,” Clinton said in a speech. “It wasn’t long after Sen. [Mitch] McConnell said his No. 1 goal was to prevent the President’s reelection that Donald Trump started his racist campaign to discredit the President’s citizenship.” “Remember the birther movement?” asked Clinton, in reference to Trump’s 2011 campaign suggesting that President Barack Obama was not actually a U.S. citizen and wasn’t born in the United States. Remember the birther movement?” asked Clinton, in reference to Trump’s 2011 campaign suggesting that President Barack Obama was not actually a U.S. citizen and wasn’t born in the United States. These things are connected,” Clinton said. “When you have leaders willing to bring the whole of government to a halt to make headlines, you may just give rise to candidates who promise to do even more radical and dangerous things. Because once you make the extreme normal, you open the door to even worse.” Clinton questioned the kind of Supreme Court justices and attorneys general that the Trump would nominate.“As you know, he believes Muslims should be banned from entering this country because of their faith. What would that mean for a nation founded on religious freedom?” Clinton asked the small audience. “He wants to round up 11 million immigrants and kick them out. What would that mean for a nation built by immigrants?” Clinton’s campaign billed the speech as the former secretary of state’s platform to outline her views on the Supreme Court and paint a picture of who she would nominate to the Supreme Court, should she become president. Clinton noted that the next president will likely nominate “multiple justices” and that should motivate progressives to make the Supreme Court a voting issue. “In short, in a single term, the Supreme Court could demolish pillars of the progressive movement and as someone who has worked on every single one of these issue for decades, I see this as a make or break moment,” Clinton said. “If we are serous about pushing for progressives causes, we need to focus on the court,” she added.“ Clinton had kind words for Merrick Garland, the federal judge Obama tapped earlier this month to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but didn’t outright endorse him, telling a questioner that she would not “second guess the President’s choice.” Clinton did, however, knock Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for pledging not to offer Garland a hearing. The former New York senator said Grassley should “step up and do his job.” “He says we should wait for a new president because – and I quote – ‘The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice,’” Clinton said, citing Grassley’s own words. “Well, as one of the more than 65 million Americans who voted to re-elect Barack Obama, I’d say my voice is being ignored right now because of their obstructionism.” Clinton will continue campaigning in Wisconsin on Monday, with a rally in Milwaukee, and on Tuesday with a series of events around the state. Her campaign, though, is lowering expectations on the contest, noting that she lost the state to then Sen. Barack Obama by 18 points in 2008.”
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Dec 11, 2023 18:23:48 GMT
This morning Jack Smith asked that question of the Supreme Court. Democracy Docket… ”BREAKING: In the DC election subversion case, Jack Smith asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on whether Donald Trump is immune from criminal charges for actions he took as president. Smith asks the Court to rule quickly so trial can proceed in March.” x.com/democracydocket/status/1734274010538541322?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nwWe will see is we have anything approaching a functioning democracy and legitimate judicial system.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 11, 2023 18:50:16 GMT
I am optimistic. I don’t think the Trump-appointed justices are particularly fond of Trump himself.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Dec 11, 2023 18:52:20 GMT
Kyle Cheney… ”BREAKING: Jack SMITH has gone straight to SCOTUS on the question of presidential immunity for Donald Trump's Washington, D.C. charges and he's seeking to expedite the matter. The petition:” “SMITH acknowledges that Trump's appeal of the immunity ruling "suspends" the March 4 trial. He's urging the high court to resolvet he matter so the case can continue "promptly." ”The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request. This is an extraordinary case." Signers of the brief: Smith, James Pearce and ... Michael Dreeben, formerly of the Mueller special counsel's office.” x.com/hollo_point2020/status/1734275298147897571?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw
|
|
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Dec 11, 2023 19:36:01 GMT
I am optimistic. I don’t think the Trump-appointed justices are particularly fond of Trump himself. I'm not. I am scared to death. I do not trust the current court. What if a majority says he has immunity? Are we totally fucked?
|
|
naby64
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,418
Jun 25, 2014 21:44:13 GMT
|
Post by naby64 on Dec 11, 2023 21:06:41 GMT
But isn't this a double edges sword to die on? If he were to be found immune from charges "as the POTUS" then wouldn't that automatically make Biden immune from any charges? Or is it specific to Trump's charges?
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Dec 11, 2023 21:10:59 GMT
As far as I can see there is nothing they could convict Biden on anyway. They've basically admitted they are just harassing him.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 11, 2023 21:12:41 GMT
But isn't this a double edges sword to die on? If he were to be found immune from charges "as the POTUS" then wouldn't that automatically make Biden immune from any charges? Or is it specific to Trump's charges? It should be for all, but if TFG wins, it won't matter much in the long run... TFG will only use the courts against Biden, the media, in fact everyone!
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 11, 2023 21:38:47 GMT
I am optimistic. I don’t think the Trump-appointed justices are particularly fond of Trump himself. I'm not. I am scared to death. I do not trust the current court. What if a majority says he has immunity? Are we totally fucked? Yes, I’d say so. Although there are other things that other courts can get him on.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 11, 2023 21:44:33 GMT
If he is immune he is immune.....
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Dec 11, 2023 22:14:21 GMT
As far as I can see there is nothing they could convict Biden on anyway. They've basically admitted they are just harassing him. I agree, I don’t think there are either. But I wouldn’t care if there were charges they could convict Biden on, giving any POTUS this immunity would be disastrous. Terrifying what they could get away with.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Dec 11, 2023 22:22:06 GMT
As far as I can see there is nothing they could convict Biden on anyway. They've basically admitted they are just harassing him. I agree, I don’t think there are either. But I wouldn’t care if there were charges they could convict Biden on, giving any POTUS this immunity would be disastrous. Terrifying what they could get away with. Yeah, and we thought Richard Nixon was a criminal. The only people he was trying to screw was political opponents on the other side, not the American people. The orange asshole wants to screw the entire country including the fools who have voted and supported him. How far we have come!
|
|
pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,060
Nov 14, 2016 23:47:03 GMT
|
Post by pinklady on Dec 11, 2023 22:24:34 GMT
Well if the court finds that presidents have immunity, then I suggest Biden get fucking busy breaking the law! I'm so over the democrats playing by the rules.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 11, 2023 22:36:40 GMT
The SCOTUS will consider the case. TFG has until Wednesday 10:00 to respond.
Seems that's wrong... ^^^
Dec 20 at 4pm
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Dec 11, 2023 22:46:50 GMT
I am optimistic. I don’t think the Trump-appointed justices are particularly fond of Trump himself. yeah, i think they are trying to shed the "trump lackey" image that people have of them. i'm sure they want to wipe away that (*) that people have put next to their names because of their association with trump. a political commentator just said that approval ratings for the Supreme Court is the lowest it's been since they started tracking it. he said that Roberts is tired of Thomas and Alito's shady dealings and the Court just wants to move on from Trump. fingers crossed the Court does the right thing in it's interpretation of the presidential immunity.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Dec 11, 2023 22:51:02 GMT
Apparently we will find out soon enough… ”BREAKING: SCOTUS grants expedited review of Special Counsel’s petition filed today seeking immediate review of Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim and related constitutional claims. Trump’s response is due by 4p Dec. 20. More to come at Law Dork: lawdork.com” x.com/chrisgeidner/status/1734340616451174489?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 12, 2023 13:31:37 GMT
Unfortunately to the SCOTUS's idea of speedy could still be six months....
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Dec 12, 2023 19:35:33 GMT
I am optimistic. I don’t think the Trump-appointed justices are particularly fond of Trump himself. yeah, i think they are trying to shed the "trump lackey" image that people have of them. i'm sure they want to wipe away that (*) that people have put next to their names because of their association with trump. a political commentator just said that approval ratings for the Supreme Court is the lowest it's been since they started tracking it. he said that Roberts is tired of Thomas and Alito's shady dealings and the Court just wants to move on from Trump. fingers crossed the Court does the right thing in it's interpretation of the presidential immunity. Sorry, there will always be an asterisk next to this court. I am unaware of there ever being a bought & paid for SCOTUS before. It’s probably happened thru history that a justice here or there was influenced, but a majority of this court is indebted to far right wackos. And beer boy will forever be an unqualified juvenile to me, and I can never erase his horrific display of slobbering and blubbering during his hearings from my mind. FFS get a god damned spine and get a hold of yourself you want to be a Supreme Court justice act like one. And they say women are too emotional?
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 12, 2023 21:15:57 GMT
hop2 hop2 you said that so very well!! Bravo!!!
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Dec 13, 2023 19:29:34 GMT
It would appear trump’s lawyers are not happy…. Occupy Democrats… ”BREAKING: Donald Trump's shady lawyers hit a pathetic new low as they accuse Special Counsel Jack Smith of being the "Grinch" trying to ruin Christmas by making them work through the holiday season. Yes. Seriously. Trump's attorneys complained to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing against Smith's request for an expedited review of whether or not Trump can be held liable for crimes he committed while president. The Trump lawyers said that the request would destroy their plans for the holidays— "This proposed schedule would require attorneys and support staff to work round-the-clock through the holidays, inevitably disrupting family and travel plans," they wrote. "It is as if the Special Counsel 'growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming, ‘I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming... But how?’" Putting aside the laziness, it's absurd that these lawyers would think that their holiday plans are more important than the future of the country. This is a historic case, with nothing less than the future of our democracy on the line. Trump's lawyers also rolled out some of their all-too-familiar complaints that Smith is politically targeting Trump. "The prosecution has one goal in this case: To unlawfully attempt to try, convict, and sentence President Trump before an election in which he is likely to defeat President Biden," Trump's lawyers argued. "This represents a blatant attempt to interfere with the 2024 presidential election and to disenfranchise the tens of millions of voters who support President Trump’s candidacy." This claim holds absolutely no water because Trump could have avoided prosecution by simply not committing crimes. Jack Smith is just doing his job. He's not the Grinch, he's a good, loyal American. Please retweet and ❤️ if you support Special Counsel Jack Smith — and consider joining the growing exodus to Tribel, a new pro-democracy social network that is exploding in popularity because Twitter and Facebook are trying to stop its growth — which is only making Tribel grow even faster. Please follow us on Tribel to get all of our breaking news alerts sent straight to your phone or computer by clicking the following link: tribel.app.link/okwPIHYCIqb” x.com/occupydemocrats/status/1734977247663263874?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Dec 13, 2023 19:38:45 GMT
But isn't this a double edges sword to die on? If he were to be found immune from charges "as the POTUS" then wouldn't that automatically make Biden immune from any charges? Or is it specific to Trump's charges? That’s why it should be rejected. It’s almost as if he is assuming it will be and you know he is planning much worse in his second term. This will also be in effect for any future president it’s just wrong. No one should be above the law. This would just encourage more criminal behavior in the future.
|
|
maryannscraps
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,803
Aug 28, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
|
Post by maryannscraps on Dec 13, 2023 19:41:57 GMT
So is Thomas going to recuse himself? His wife was all in on the overturning of the election and Jan 6 activities.
|
|
oh yvonne
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,064
Jun 26, 2014 0:45:23 GMT
|
Post by oh yvonne on Dec 13, 2023 19:45:08 GMT
It would appear trump’s lawyers are not happy…. Occupy Democrats… ”BREAKING: Donald Trump's shady lawyers hit a pathetic new low as they accuse Special Counsel Jack Smith of being the "Grinch" trying to ruin Christmas by making them work through the holiday season. Yes. Seriously. Trump's attorneys complained to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing against Smith's request for an expedited review of whether or not Trump can be held liable for crimes he committed while president. The Trump lawyers said that the request would destroy their plans for the holidays— "This proposed schedule would require attorneys and support staff to work round-the-clock through the holidays, inevitably disrupting family and travel plans," they wrote. "It is as if the Special Counsel 'growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming, ‘I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming... But how?’" Putting aside the laziness, it's absurd that these lawyers would think that their holiday plans are more important than the future of the country. This is a historic case, with nothing less than the future of our democracy on the line. Trump's lawyers also rolled out some of their all-too-familiar complaints that Smith is politically targeting Trump. "The prosecution has one goal in this case: To unlawfully attempt to try, convict, and sentence President Trump before an election in which he is likely to defeat President Biden," Trump's lawyers argued. "This represents a blatant attempt to interfere with the 2024 presidential election and to disenfranchise the tens of millions of voters who support President Trump’s candidacy." This claim holds absolutely no water because Trump could have avoided prosecution by simply not committing crimes. Jack Smith is just doing his job. He's not the Grinch, he's a good, loyal American. Please retweet and ❤️ if you support Special Counsel Jack Smith — and consider joining the growing exodus to Tribel, a new pro-democracy social network that is exploding in popularity because Twitter and Facebook are trying to stop its growth — which is only making Tribel grow even faster. Please follow us on Tribel to get all of our breaking news alerts sent straight to your phone or computer by clicking the following link: tribel.app.link/okwPIHYCIqb” x.com/occupydemocrats/status/1734977247663263874?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nwgood Lord this sounds like an SNL skit in the making.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Dec 13, 2023 22:13:23 GMT
But isn't this a double edges sword to die on? If he were to be found immune from charges "as the POTUS" then wouldn't that automatically make Biden immune from any charges? Or is it specific to Trump's charges? That’s why it should be rejected. It’s almost as if he is assuming it will be and you know he is planning much worse in his second term. This will also be in effect for any future president it’s just wrong. No one should be above the law. This would just encourage more criminal behavior in the future. That’s ok to him, I don’t think Trump is planning on there being any other future presidents while he is available. He’s all in for the fascism
|
|
Gem Girl
Pearl Clutcher
......
Posts: 2,686
Jun 29, 2014 19:29:52 GMT
|
Post by Gem Girl on Dec 13, 2023 22:44:15 GMT
But isn't this a double edges sword to die on? If he were to be found immune from charges "as the POTUS" then wouldn't that automatically make Biden immune from any charges? Or is it specific to Trump's charges? That’s why it should be rejected. It’s almost as if he is assuming it will be and you know he is planning much worse in his second term. This will also be in effect for any future president it’s just wrong. No one should be above the law. This would just encourage more criminal behavior in the future. Or, as somebody smarter than I pointed out, if that were the case, what's to stop Joe Biden from grabbing TFG and throwing him into prison forever, instead of bothering to run against him, while he's occupying 1600 PA Ave.? Not that Joe Biden would do that....
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Dec 14, 2023 0:07:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 14, 2023 0:57:54 GMT
Kavanaugh has already addressed immunity... All of 25 years ago!! youtu.be/Ftu-Lz21A0c?si=i8IPymVzfE4aRZP9How Kavanaugh already shot down Trump’s immunity-from-prosecution claim — 2 decades agoAlex Henderson, AlterNet December 13, 2023 9:42AM ET ....... In a Tuesday, December 12 broadcast, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out that one of the High Court's justices, Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh, has already expressed his views on the immunity-from-prosecution question.O'Donnell told viewers, "At least one member of the Supreme Court has already agreed, in writing, with Judge Chutkan's ruling. And what makes this an especially crushing setback to Donald Trump's hopes in the Supreme Court is that the member of the Court who fully agrees with Judge Chutkan is one of the three justices appointed by Donald Trump. That means there are likely tonight at least four votes against Donald Trump on the Supreme Court, with only one more vote needed to crush the Trump appeal." The MSNBC host went on to say that "the breaking news of the night is actually 25 years ago" — meaning that Kavanaugh ruled on the immunity-from-prosecution subject in 1998. "In July 1998," O'Donnell explained, "Brett Kavanaugh wrote a 38-page article for the Georgetown Law Journal, complete with 167 footnotes. The title of what is now the most important thing Brett Kavanagh ever wrote before becoming a Supreme Court justice is 'The President and the Independent Counsel.'" Kavanaugh, in 1998, wrote, "Congress should establish that the President can be indicted only after he leaves office voluntarily or is impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted and removed by the Senate." Trump left office on January 20, 2021, when Joe Biden was sworn in as president. O'Donnell told viewers, "Page 16 of Brett Kavanaugh's article removes all doubt about what Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh actually thinks." www.rawstory.com/trump-immunity-2666578201/
|
|
caangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,730
Location: So Cal
Jun 26, 2014 16:42:12 GMT
|
Post by caangel on Dec 14, 2023 14:56:19 GMT
”BREAKING: Donald Trump's shady lawyers hit a pathetic new low as they accuse Special Counsel Jack Smith of being the "Grinch" trying to ruin Christmas by making them work through the holiday season. It's hard to find people who want to actually work nowadays. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Dec 14, 2023 20:43:38 GMT
IMO all outstanding charges against dumpster don should be settled before people start to vote. This is the first time a front runner for a Political Party’s nomination for President has been indicted, not once but 4 times with 90+ charges. I get the bit “innocent until proven guilty” but all charges should be settled before people vote. Because we all know that if they aren’t and he is elected President these charges will go away. And so much for the rule of law. Aaron Rupar…. ”Trump’s only real legal strategy to beat the felony charges he faces for trying to overturn his election loss is to win & then use the presidency to make it all go away. Jack Smith is daring SCOTUS to state whether they intend to let him get away with it" x.com/atrupar/status/1735385585110356237?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw
|
|