upload pic
Roberts could not cite an underlying Law
And buys into rush-rush to get Trump.
Wow.
They are also playing into the narrative that Jack Smith is King - and should be given whatever he wants.
A Week!
Should be 6 weeks. Minimum.
.
The Supremes have declined to intervene or recognize Trump’s Privilege - and I said if a Prosecutor had questioned one of Joe’s staff - the Supreme Court would absolutely crushed that in an Emergency order.
Wow is right!
You are mistaken. SCOTUS is simply asking for briefings on whether they should take the case. I think it is highly unlikely they would take this case. These are two substantial issues which deal with presidential immunity, which means that the Supreme Court would want appellate judges to weigh in first. Everybody in DC legal circles knows that the trial judge is deliberately trying to speed up the case.
That’s not enough time. Supreme Court jumping at this smoking ahole’s request is not good.
Traitor Roberts is traitoring again.
Obama has something on Roberts.
The Supreme Court refused to hear any 2020 election fraud suits brought before them, claiming the petitioners had “lack of standing,” so what “standing” does Jackoff Smith have to bring any 2020 election petition before them now?
My first comment:
t seems that the stage is set.
My second comment, after a little thinking:
There’s something else going on.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Trump was NOT convicted, thus he is NOT subject to indictment for the thing the Senate cleared him of. That would be the whole J6 conspiracy hoax.
Oh, standing? Every institution in the United States is corrupt
The Supreme Corrupts
He must respond to a corrupt Jackboot AG or else.
Describing the case as presenting a “fundamental question at the heart of our democracy,” Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court on Monday to decide early next year, without waiting for a federal appeals court to weigh in, whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. “[G]iven the weighty and consequential character of the constitutional questions at stake,” Smith contended, “only this Court can provide the definitive and final resolution” of Trump’s “immunity claims that this case demands.”
In a decision on Dec. 1, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s claim that he cannot be prosecuted. But because Trump’s appeal of that ruling puts his trial, scheduled for Mar. 4, 2024, on hold, Smith argued, the Supreme Court should nonetheless weigh in as quickly as possible so that the trial can go forward if he is not entitled to immunity.
Trump was indicted on Aug. 1. He sought to have the charges against him dismissed on two different grounds. First, he contended, he cannot be prosecuted for acts that were part of his responsibilities as president. Second, he argued, and in any event, he cannot be prosecuted in this case because he had already been impeached, but not convicted, in 2021 on charges arising from the same conduct.
After Chutkan denied Trump’s request, Trump appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and sought to put all proceedings in the trial court on hold until his appeal is resolved.
It is just moving Trump’s appeal of the lower court decision directly up to the Supreme Court.
Smith knows the answer or he would not have asked the question.
There’s another way to look at this. Supposedly these charges are nothing burgers with no basis behind them. So baseless that even a junior law associate could mount a defense by easily tearing down the charges. So why the strategy of delay? Is it because the charges are more serious than team Trump and his mouthpieces are letting on? Is it because his only defense is to hide behind presidential immunity? If the charges were as flimsy as has been presented, isn’t the best course of action to easily bat them down, win and make a mockery of Smith?
p
