- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS will not fast track Jack Smith’s bull shite case against DJT.
Posted on 12/23/23 at 2:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/23/23 at 2:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
I know it is your nature to be arbitrarily.
But are you seriously going to keep saying SCOTUS kicking it back to DC was somehow a win for Jack Smith like that other tool shed?
But are you seriously going to keep saying SCOTUS kicking it back to DC was somehow a win for Jack Smith like that other tool shed?
1
Posted on 12/23/23 at 3:51 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
As we've discussed, once Trump is POTUS, the cases will either be dropped by DOJ outright, or by pardon
Then I imagine he will be impeached and removed.
quote:
The Georgia case will either be stayed, or stopped as well.
Why?
Posted on 12/23/23 at 3:51 pm to Rebel
quote:
But are you seriously going to keep saying SCOTUS kicking it back to DC was somehow a win for Jack Smith
Where did I say that?
Posted on 12/23/23 at 3:58 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
a podunk lawyer who spends all his time posting on a message board, knows more than SCOUTS
Posted on 12/23/23 at 4:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Where did I say that?
Here
And you inferred it in other posts while cleverly trying to leave yourself an out.
This post was edited on 12/23/23 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 12/23/23 at 4:02 pm to Rebel
quote:
And you inferred it in other posts while cleverly trying to leave yourself an out.
No I didn't
I stated d that MAGA, who has claimed they can't wait for the Supreme Court to rule, now doesn't want them to rule, and that a delayed ruling may not work out for Trump (if he's convicted and possibly imprisoned while President)
ETA: none of that is commentary on Jack Smith. This would assume a neutral result for him
This post was edited on 12/23/23 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 12/23/23 at 4:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm terms of real world efficiency I completely agree.
Posted on 12/23/23 at 4:07 pm to Rebel
Real world efficiency is not a comment on Jack Smith.
Posted on 12/23/23 at 4:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then I imagine he will be impeached and removed.
Lol wut??
A Republican-controlled House is going to impeach Trump just so Jack Smith can try him on some bullshite charges??
And you ARE aware that a sitting President cannot be indicted, or subjected to criminal trials, while President, right? It's pretty well established... you want some assclown DA in Atlanta to cause the entire country to be shut down and in the midst of a Constitutional crisis because... Trump hurt your fee fees?
Posted on 12/23/23 at 4:46 pm to BengalOnTheBay
quote:
A Republican-controlled House is going to impeach Trump just so Jack Smith can try him on some bullshite charges?
People are going to be outraged if they think Trump is unilaterally evading potential prosecution. If we assume Trump wins in 2024, we can assume the GOP holds one of the houses. The outrage over that move almost certainly will give the DEMs an even stronger showing in midterms than you'd expect and they should own both houses.
That move by Trump is going to piss of a ton of voters, including lots of moderate Republicans.
quote:
And you ARE aware that a sitting President cannot be indicted, or subjected to criminal trials, while President, right?
That's a DOJ policy as best I can tell. Plus he would already be indicted as a non-President. If the USSC decides that Trump isn't immune from this prosecution, I don't see why we'd imagine they would then flip and say he couldn't be prosecuted while President. I could be wrong, but this is like the self-pardon, all theoretical with no legal basis to really be sure.
What we can infer from the NIxon saga is that Presidents can be prosecuted for criminal acts.
quote:
you want some assclown DA in Atlanta to cause the entire country to be shut down and in the midst of a Constitutional crisis because... Trump hurt your fee fees?
Presumably, it would be because they allege he committed a crime.
There is a lot in this sphere is is nowhere near settled law.
Also, states are not bound by the DOJ policy. You're getting into all sorts of other issues when you deprive a state of its constitutional function.
Posted on 12/23/23 at 4:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
You are reaching Vor level delusion.
Posted on 12/23/23 at 5:04 pm to TDTOM
quote:
You are reaching Vor level delusion.
By saying we don't know?
Or that American voters will be mad if Trump has a hand in dropping these prosecutions while he's President?
Posted on 12/23/23 at 5:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
American voters will be mad if Trump has a hand in dropping these prosecutions while he's President
The only ones that will be are the one's with TDS so it wouldn't matter either way. The rest of us know what they're doing and want it stopped.
Posted on 12/23/23 at 5:54 pm to Rebel
quote:
But he wanted me to make sure everyone knows Jack Smith’s trying to circumvent legal processes is in no way lawfare.
did you see new tapes of Trump on the phone with Michigan election officials trying to muscle them into not certifying the 2020 election results?
Posted on 12/23/23 at 6:00 pm to texridder
no I haven't seen the audio tapes. have you seen the audio tapes?
Trump won Michigan. So they shouldn't have certified while an investigation was going on.
There is a thread on this subject if you want to discuss it there. This thread is about Jack Smith, a powerful attorney trying to circumvent due process. Take your whataboutsim elsewhere.
Trump won Michigan. So they shouldn't have certified while an investigation was going on.
There is a thread on this subject if you want to discuss it there. This thread is about Jack Smith, a powerful attorney trying to circumvent due process. Take your whataboutsim elsewhere.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 5:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Your way of saying you "don't know" implies you think you know.
By saying we don't know?
E.g., Your speculation about impeachment seems to ignore the fact there will be an entire POTUS election campaign in which our socialist press corps will attack this issue six ways to Sunday. The question of court obligations juxtaposed with obligations of the presidency will be asked and answered.
The American people will know, Congress members and candidates will know. Pardon and/or dropped charges will be addressed. The electorate will have spoken in response, which is sad in a way, because it will probably prevent Jack Smith from serving prison time.
But no, Trump won't be impeached for eliminating the ability of some democrat bitch in a robe to summon the President of the United States of America out of a war cabinet meeting and order him to sit in a protracted trial.
This post was edited on 12/24/23 at 5:39 am
Posted on 12/24/23 at 6:11 am to Rebel
quote:
This thread is about Jack Smith, a powerful attorney trying to circumvent due process
No, applying for emergency/expedited review is NOT a due process violation.
No, SCOTUS taking up the issue now would NOT have been a due process violation.
No, having SCOTUS decide the immunity issue and either ordering the charges dismissed or remanding the case to the district court for trial would NOT be a due process violation.
You are wrong.
This post was edited on 12/24/23 at 6:13 am
Posted on 12/24/23 at 6:31 am to Indefatigable
quote:Alan Dershowitz: Prosecutor Jack Smith Could Be Indicted For ‘Conspiring To Deny’ Trump’s Rights
NOT a due process violation.
NOT a due process violation.
NOT a due process violation.
You are wrong.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 6:36 am to David_DJS
quote:
few DeSantis supporters are cheering for Jack Smith
It depends...I think those are supporting him because of policies and track record hate this almost as much as Trump supporters.
I think the Uniparty Puppeteers and the A.B.T. crowd are throwing a shite-fit right now
Posted on 12/24/23 at 7:30 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Alan Dershowitz
He' turned himself into a media figure for the rabid Trump fanbase. He's the Tim Pool of celebrity law professors, now...or Rudy vol 2.. He just says what they want to hear and that's how he keeps the media appearance money flowing.
He even hedged completely:
quote:
That would mean that Jack Smith tried to deny Trump his constitutional rights in this indictment,” he continued. ” I make that point not to argue that Jack Smith should be indicted, of course not. To make the point that the indictment is so broad, so wide, so all encompassing, it could include so much political conduct.
So that statement was, "I'm going to give you a crazy ice breaker to discuss this story....and then say it's nto legitimate at all"
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News