Well duh, of course you want to have a ruling on whether your President is a seditious traitor before he gets in office.
Well duh, of course you want to have a ruling on whether your President is a seditious traitor before he gets in office.
Besides, this prosecution is not politically motivated anyways. We all saw how things transpired. He's guilty AF.
Unarmed but leading a huge crowd of traitors in an attack on the Capitol. You're telling me those police didn't fear for their lives? Should they have just run away and let the crowd ransack our Captitol? Ashli Babbit deserved what she got. What a ****ing idiot. Don't do the crime if you can't handle the possible outcome.
Red
Well-Known Member
Nope. Blame the Supreme Court, not my likes or dislikes.
“Since Congress first conferred such authority as part of its far broader expansion of certiorari jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1925 (the so-called “Judges’ Bill”), the Supreme Court has used its power to grant “cert before judgment” sparingly. As the current version of the court’s Rule 11 emphasizes, cert before judgment will be granted “only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” The leading Supreme Court treatise, Supreme Court Practice, reinforces the rarity of such relief: “The public interest in a speedy determination must be exceptional … to warrant skipping the court of appeals in this fashion.” The most well-known examples prove the point — from the Nazi saboteurs’ case during World War II; to the Youngstown steel seizure case in 1952; to the Watergate tapes case in 1974; to the Iranian hostage dispute in 1981. In all of those cases, not only were the questions presented of the utmost importance, but time was of the essence, as well.”
——————————————————————————————
“Questions presented of the utmost importance”? Check. “Time was of the essence, as well”. Check.
Note the key point: “As the current version of the court’s Rule 11 emphasizes, cert before judgment will be granted “only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” The leading Supreme Court treatise, Supreme Court Practice, reinforces the rarity of such relief: “The public interest in a speedy determination must be exceptional … to warrant skipping the court of appeals in this fashion.” I’m thinking the Supreme Court saw this trial as meeting those criteria.
I believe this present case meets the criteria the Supreme Court is likely using in this case, and for pretty obvious reasons. If any trial in the history of this nation meets that criteria, surely it is this one. BTW, as far as influencing the election, so far the indictments don’t seem to have hurt Trump at all, and I really can’t say if the trial in Washington will hurt him or help him in the 2024 election.
The rise of certiorari before judgment
For obvious reasons, the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to grant certiorari in a pair of cases challenging race-based affirmative action in higher education drew major headlines. Less well noticed […]
www.scotusblog.com
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
LOL stepping on every rake I set down.
Now he’s defending Babbit! Oh my LOL
Keep digging
Now he’s defending Babbit! Oh my LOL
Keep digging
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Exactly this
Red
Well-Known Member
Special Counsel has Trump's Jan 6th smartphone and all its data
A notice filed in the DC Federal election interference case shows that Special Counsel Jack Smith has the data from Trump's phones and intends to use them as evidence of…
boingboing.net
“A recent filing in the Special Counsel's DC case against Donald Trump shows that the White House cell phones used by Trump leading up to and on January 6th are in the DOJ's possession with data that'll support the government's case against him. Direct messages in social networking apps, texts, images, and call logs are there to show what the Orange Menace was up to”.
Special Counsel has Trump's Jan 6th smartphone and all its data
A notice filed in the DC Federal election interference case shows that Special Counsel Jack Smith has the data from Trump's phones and intends to use them as evidence of…
“A recent filing in the Special Counsel's DC case against Donald Trump shows that the White House cell phones used by Trump leading up to and on January 6th are in the DOJ's possession with data that'll support the government's case against him. Direct messages in social networking apps, texts, images, and call logs are there to show what the Orange Menace was up to”.
Great news if he was using that phone, though you'd think the evidence is compelling enough without it.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
You mean that not all politicians smash their phones with hammers or use BleachBit to remove all traces of information after getting a subpoena?Special Counsel has Trump's Jan 6th smartphone and all its data
A notice filed in the DC Federal election interference case shows that Special Counsel Jack Smith has the data from Trump's phones and intends to use them as evidence of…
“A recent filing in the Special Counsel's DC case against Donald Trump shows that the White House cell phones used by Trump leading up to and on January 6th are in the DOJ's possession with data that'll support the government's case against him. Direct messages in social networking apps, texts, images, and call logs are there to show what the Orange Menace was up to”.
Last edited:
I am not aware of a politician that did that.