Posted on 12/11/2023 12:09:48 PM PST by thegagline
I think they will take it up. Important that it be satisfied.
Read the link at 38.
“I agree. As Robert Gouveia Esq. pointed out, “If the President believes a federal election was fraudulently held, the President must address the issue as part of his executive duties.”
Well, it only takes four Justices to grant certiorari, so we shall see.
OK, then accepting your argument. That would mean trying him again on it would be double Jeopardy.
OK, fine, it was a legal proceeding. However, there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell of a conviction - so my contention that it was 100% political theater stands.
Legally it probably would have been valid. See the other posts on this point. The CJ only presides over impeachment trials for sitting Presidents. By the time the Senate trial began, Trump was no longer President but was arguably subject to punishment beyond removal from office.
And he was constitutionally acquitted by the Senate. Just because they screwed up the trial does not impair Trump’s claim. So for example you find that the district attorney that tried you on a armed robbery charge never even went to law school and has a fraudulent diploma. That would be a reversible error for the person being prosecuted, but it would not give the prosecution the right to conduct a second trial.
Trump was legally acquitted. It’s too bad so sad for the prosecution, but not for the defendant.
Nope, sounds like you got it exactly right.
Smith has shown himself to be completely corrupt. Whatever the reason, it isn't to be graceful.
Jackov is running a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2024 election.
“...charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme”
“...all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.”
That in itself is not a proven fact as since the event took place prior to the identified process of determining who won, and before Biden was sworn in, Trump is still the president and was in power. Those parts of the charges if they are written that way are heresay at best.
wy69
“...charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme”
“...all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.”
That in itself is not a proven fact as since the event took place prior to the identified process of determining who won, and before Biden was sworn in, Trump is still the president and was in power. Those parts of the charges if they are written that way are heresay at best.
wy69
Could it be that Smith thinks the appeals court will rule against him?
Jack Smith’s team sees Trump’s numbers climbing and the democrat party is in a panic they want him to act fast before the elections.
If they do ramifications of some sort will ensue the constitution and liberty are on the gallows.
I think they are looking for a way out of the mess they got themselves into.
They want SCOTUS to rule against them so they can point the finger and say, the corrupt conservative court let Trump off the hook.
His hurry is to find out if he’s wasting his time which I feel sure he is. 😏
It would be heard in a DC court.
I think they are looking for a way out of the mess they got themselves into.
They want SCOTUS to rule against them so they can point the finger and say, the corrupt conservative court let Trump off the hook.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wish that were true but in my humble opinion, not a frigging chance.
These people are far too nefarious for that.
I like the way you think and I hope I am as wrong as wrong gets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.