Why do we even have laws if nobody can be convicted using the law. Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion which in today's world somehow would be wrong method to convict him.
Aren't the Elextoral Ballots Pence was counting documents? And if I remember correctly, the Archives are in possession of the fake electoral ballots. Let's not forget the recent
disclosures from Chesebro
either, concerning the fake
ballots.
J6 insurrection was to stop the count of the paper ballots
and leave Trump as president.
I'm pretty darn sure Jack Smith is covering his bases
I guess this can happen when you go after groupers (or should I say groypers?) instead of whales.
If memory serves, Jack Smith could have charged Trump with inciting or aiding an insurrection - a factual conclusion which the Supreme Court just ducked (but left ostentatiously undisturbed) in the Colorado ballot case - but chose discretion over valor instead .
I can see how 1512 c (1) requires documents to be involved. But I'm having trouble seeing why c(2) is a novel application here. Doesn't "otherwise" make it pretty clear that there are non-document related ways to obstruct official proceedings?
For a court that "doesn't want to get involved in elections" this one has put not just a thumb but their whole arm on the scales for t***p, the ridiculously over the top ballot ruling, Taking the immunity case which they could certainly have left alone since there were no contrary rulings. And what will likely be a discovery case out of FL. The Supreme court has assured t***p will not see justice before the election.
"The Trump team’s theory is that by throwing out the 1512 charges, the court could avoid wading too far into the issue of presidential immunity, about which even some pro-Trump lawyers privately express grave doubts. Fischer could be the Supreme Court’s off-ramp for the immunity case."
The current make-up of the SCOTUS is such that any discussions on presidential immunity* will not actually apply to the illiberal actions taken by the Mango Malignancy, just future POTUSs -- if we ever have a free and fair election for POTUS again. At least five of the six conservative (read: reactionary) justices have shown a tendency to consider whatever the Fulvous Flatulence does is copacetic; "move along, there's nothing to see here." Two of the justices seem to be openly kowtowing before the Bloviating Butterscotch Buffoon. It almost looks like the Roberts SCOTUS places the Mango Malignancy, and his administration, above the other two branches of government, and that the Judiciary Branch should be used to support the Executive, not hold it to account.
-----
"When the court announced last week that it would hear Trump’s immunity challenge, it marked a victory for him insofar as it builds in further delays in the January 6 case."
Wasn't delaying the trials, if the Sandstone Snowflake (he has a meltdown over anything with which he disagrees) doesn't win his appeals the plan from the start? As has been pointed out myriad times by myriad people the bottom line on the delays is to run out the clock in the hopes that the Fulvous Flatulence will win reelection [turns head and spits three times between index and middle fingers]. Having won will put him in charge of his own future, and then you can bet your last dollar that he will *never* be held to account.
-----
"He wants both the DC January 6 case and his federal classified documents case to go to trial after the election.Because [sic] if he wins, Trump plans either to have his DOJ drop the suits or to pardon himself."
The Cadmium Orange Cancer will first try to quash the cases against him, and my guess is that this action won't sit well with the majority of the American public. McConnell claimed that it was up to the courts to decide if Trump**^^^^ committed any crimes, and not the Senate. Since then, the disgraced and disgraceful ex-President has done everything he can to delay justice for exactly one of the reasons stated above. Once reinstalled behind the Resolute Desk [G-dess forfend] he'll instruct his new AG to cease all suits against him. If that doesn't work, or if he has already been convicted in at least one trial, he'll definitely self-pardon -- and given the current court supermajority they will not say word number one about the minor detail that the Constitution doesn't give that right to a POTUS.
(* I've said this before, and will continue saying it until the SCOTUS hands down its immunity decision: this should not even be a question. If a POTUS has total and complete immunity for actions taken while in office, then an impeachment is impossible. Impeachment is contingent on "high crimes and misdemeanors," and blanket immunity means that there is no way for POTUS to commit an impeachable offense; a total immunity means, by definition, that there can be *no* crime or misdemeanor having occurred.)
Sergey Magnitsky investigated the theft of $200 million (ruble equivalent) from the Russian tax authority, by Russian tax authority employees. After the thieves had him murdered in prison (with blessing from the top of the government), the Russian legal system found Magnitsky guilty of the crime. Posthumously. See Browder and the Magnitsky Act.
This same kind of "legal" injustice can metastasize here. If the law doesn't hold criminals to account in America, we are lost.
Very helpful explanation of yet another potential off-ramp for a man whose criminal activities were witnessed by millions
Well, stop giving this guilty bastard freaking ideas! Jeebus Krispies!
Why do we even have laws if nobody can be convicted using the law. Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion which in today's world somehow would be wrong method to convict him.
No foolin'... Roberts and Kavanaugh ARE talking about this.
Yet another opportunity for t**** to avoid consequences. Further pointing out the unfairness of our systems because of money.
Aren't the Elextoral Ballots Pence was counting documents? And if I remember correctly, the Archives are in possession of the fake electoral ballots. Let's not forget the recent
disclosures from Chesebro
either, concerning the fake
ballots.
J6 insurrection was to stop the count of the paper ballots
and leave Trump as president.
I'm pretty darn sure Jack Smith is covering his bases
on this bushwa and if Trump
goes to SCOTUS with this, he
may even represent DOJ in
person.
Oh, Florida. Reality is just a Carl Hiassen novel now.
I guess this can happen when you go after groupers (or should I say groypers?) instead of whales.
If memory serves, Jack Smith could have charged Trump with inciting or aiding an insurrection - a factual conclusion which the Supreme Court just ducked (but left ostentatiously undisturbed) in the Colorado ballot case - but chose discretion over valor instead .
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-1999-title18-section2383&num=0&edition=1999#:~:text=Whoever%20incites%2C%20sets%20on%20foot,office%20under%20the%20United%20States.
Well, perhaps it won't.
I can see how 1512 c (1) requires documents to be involved. But I'm having trouble seeing why c(2) is a novel application here. Doesn't "otherwise" make it pretty clear that there are non-document related ways to obstruct official proceedings?
Help me out here.
For a court that "doesn't want to get involved in elections" this one has put not just a thumb but their whole arm on the scales for t***p, the ridiculously over the top ballot ruling, Taking the immunity case which they could certainly have left alone since there were no contrary rulings. And what will likely be a discovery case out of FL. The Supreme court has assured t***p will not see justice before the election.
"The Trump team’s theory is that by throwing out the 1512 charges, the court could avoid wading too far into the issue of presidential immunity, about which even some pro-Trump lawyers privately express grave doubts. Fischer could be the Supreme Court’s off-ramp for the immunity case."
The current make-up of the SCOTUS is such that any discussions on presidential immunity* will not actually apply to the illiberal actions taken by the Mango Malignancy, just future POTUSs -- if we ever have a free and fair election for POTUS again. At least five of the six conservative (read: reactionary) justices have shown a tendency to consider whatever the Fulvous Flatulence does is copacetic; "move along, there's nothing to see here." Two of the justices seem to be openly kowtowing before the Bloviating Butterscotch Buffoon. It almost looks like the Roberts SCOTUS places the Mango Malignancy, and his administration, above the other two branches of government, and that the Judiciary Branch should be used to support the Executive, not hold it to account.
-----
"When the court announced last week that it would hear Trump’s immunity challenge, it marked a victory for him insofar as it builds in further delays in the January 6 case."
Wasn't delaying the trials, if the Sandstone Snowflake (he has a meltdown over anything with which he disagrees) doesn't win his appeals the plan from the start? As has been pointed out myriad times by myriad people the bottom line on the delays is to run out the clock in the hopes that the Fulvous Flatulence will win reelection [turns head and spits three times between index and middle fingers]. Having won will put him in charge of his own future, and then you can bet your last dollar that he will *never* be held to account.
-----
"He wants both the DC January 6 case and his federal classified documents case to go to trial after the election.Because [sic] if he wins, Trump plans either to have his DOJ drop the suits or to pardon himself."
The Cadmium Orange Cancer will first try to quash the cases against him, and my guess is that this action won't sit well with the majority of the American public. McConnell claimed that it was up to the courts to decide if Trump**^^^^ committed any crimes, and not the Senate. Since then, the disgraced and disgraceful ex-President has done everything he can to delay justice for exactly one of the reasons stated above. Once reinstalled behind the Resolute Desk [G-dess forfend] he'll instruct his new AG to cease all suits against him. If that doesn't work, or if he has already been convicted in at least one trial, he'll definitely self-pardon -- and given the current court supermajority they will not say word number one about the minor detail that the Constitution doesn't give that right to a POTUS.
(* I've said this before, and will continue saying it until the SCOTUS hands down its immunity decision: this should not even be a question. If a POTUS has total and complete immunity for actions taken while in office, then an impeachment is impossible. Impeachment is contingent on "high crimes and misdemeanors," and blanket immunity means that there is no way for POTUS to commit an impeachable offense; a total immunity means, by definition, that there can be *no* crime or misdemeanor having occurred.)
fnord
I seem to remember some of the J6r's were instructed to steal the actual ballots and destroy them. Wouldn't they be considered documents?
Sergey Magnitsky investigated the theft of $200 million (ruble equivalent) from the Russian tax authority, by Russian tax authority employees. After the thieves had him murdered in prison (with blessing from the top of the government), the Russian legal system found Magnitsky guilty of the crime. Posthumously. See Browder and the Magnitsky Act.
This same kind of "legal" injustice can metastasize here. If the law doesn't hold criminals to account in America, we are lost.
If there’s a way for five conservative justices to let Trump off the hook, they’ll use it. You can take that to the bank.