- 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 12/24/23 at 7:40 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 12/24/23 at 7:40 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Your way of saying you "don't know" implies you think you know.
"We don't know" is in reference to the legal discussion, not the political discussion.
quote:
The American people will know,
That was my political argument. The American people seem to support legitimately investigating (and prosecuting) Trump if necessary.
quote:
Pardon and/or dropped charges will be addressed.
And I predict the American people will be very mad if/when this is "addressed"
quote:
The electorate will have spoken in response, which is sad in a way, because it will probably prevent Jack Smith from serving prison time.
LARPing
quote:
, 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.
We do not know, especially with the NY and GA prosecutions.
There is nothing in the Constitution that clearly states the feds can't, either, but the Constitution addresses federal behavior with more specificity than the states. There certainly is nothing in the Constitution (or case law) that would deny a state its sovereign right to police power.
You know who are YUGE fans of protecting state police power? Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
1
Posted on 12/24/23 at 8:17 am to NC_Tigah
Did you even read the article you posted?
It doesn’t even discuss the request for expedited review. It’s talking about the charges generally. And the phrase “due process” doesn’t appear once.
So I’m not sure how it’s a reply in any way to my previous post or my point that seeking expedited review from SCOTUS is not a due process violation.
It doesn’t even discuss the request for expedited review. It’s talking about the charges generally. And the phrase “due process” doesn’t appear once.
So I’m not sure how it’s a reply in any way to my previous post or my point that seeking expedited review from SCOTUS is not a due process violation.
This post was edited on 12/24/23 at 8:25 am
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:In other words ... "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
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.
Do I have that right?
FWIW, the day and age of "reasonable prosecutors" ended with Mueller's BS.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:22 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In other words ... "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
The jury determines that, though.
quote:
FWIW, the day and age of "reasonable prosecutors" ended with Mueller's BS.
The guy who largely exonerated Trump?
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Not in an instance encumbering or endangering national security.
You know who are YUGE fans of protecting state police power? Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The guy who was senile on appointment, designated prosecutory details to Andrew Weissmann, and pursued a case that was DOA on arrival whose only purpose was to politically damage a POTUS. Yeah, that guy.
The guy who largely exonerated Trump?
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The guy who largely exonerated Trump?
Muller didn’t exonerate him. Lack of any credible evidence did that.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:31 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
and pursued a case that was DOA
He was appointed as SC to investigate.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:32 am to Rebel
quote:
Muller didn’t exonerate him. Lack of any credible evidence did that.
Well Mueller was responsible for the investigation that confirmed the lack of evidence. It could have swung another way.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:33 am to Indefatigable
quote:The article written by a leftist rag. Yes I read it previously when the AD statement was being discussed here originally. Google search has since been thinned. It wasn't worth the time pursuing original sourcing, like the actual video of the exchange. Why do you ask?
Did you even read the article you posted?
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:34 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Why do you ask?
He said as much. The lack of references to due process issues.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It
He was appointed as SC to investigate.
was
DOA.
A
"reasonable"
prosecutor
would have said
"This is an absurdity"
after a week of examination.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:35 am to SlowFlowPro
Melt away. Supreme Court got it right. Jack Smith has been a political hit man fir his whole career. Dems don’t like a law or outcome let’s change the law. People with half a brain want all these bullshite charges to go away. Come on if you are dumb enough to think Trump did any of these 3 million things Dems say he did , seek mental help. There are government programs to help you, maybe become a trans, play in womens sports or even have a baby as a man and start a family. 
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:36 am to NC_Tigah
If he thinks Smith is anymore legit then Weiss he is to far gone to help. 
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Then it was he, or you, who did not read the AD statement.
The lack of references to due process issues.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That was doable in a week.
Mueller was responsible for the investigation that confirmed the lack of evidence.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:40 am to NC_Tigah
Our tax money shite down the tubes on bs. If they think over 30 % of the money being sent to Ukraine ito fight war they are nuts. Dems and Republicans going to Ukraine during a war time more less , coming home with suitcases of cash.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 10:57 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Thats the problem I have with this thread. Everyone is arguing “is this a win for Trump?” “Is this a win for Jack Smith?”. No one seems to be asking if this a win for voters.
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.
Nothing would be better for voters than having Trump cleared of these bullshart charges and allowing the voters to vote on their candidate of choice without the influence of a witch hunt media circus.
Sadly OnlyFans seem to only care if this Trump “wins”. But in reality a dismissal at SCOTUS would have been a win for the American people.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 11:17 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It
was
DOA.
A
"reasonable"
prosecutor
would have said
"This is an absurdity"
after a week of examination.
A week? Dude.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 11:18 am to LSUBALLER
quote:
Melt away.
wut
Page 8 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News