- 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 11:21 am to Taxing Authority
Posted on 12/24/23 at 11:21 am to Taxing Authority
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?”.
For the record, I have not (even though people tried to pigeon-hole my comments into that paradigm.
quote:
No one seems to be asking if this a win for voters.
As I said, I think voters will be pissed of there is any interference in these prosecutions/lawsuits. The polling seems to back that up.
quote:
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.
I would imagine there are 6-7 figures of registered Republicans who would argue that the voters need to have the ability to make their choice after the cases play out.
I understand what you're saying, but I think there are a ton of voters who want these cases to play out for clarity
1
Posted on 12/24/23 at 11:40 am to Rebel
I wish the SC would just crush all of this dem garbage once and for all.
And then:
And then:
This post was edited on 12/24/23 at 11:46 am
Posted on 12/24/23 at 11:49 am to Auburn1968
quote:
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:24 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Why do you ask?
Because the article had absolutely nothing to do with the substance of my post that you responded to.
Requesting expedited SCOTUS review, or SCOTUS’ hypothetical granting thereof, is unequivocally not a due process issue.
This post was edited on 12/24/23 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Only because I was being kind to Muller. The whores peeing on a Moscow bed was debunked as was the Steele Dossier before Mueller was a pipedream. Foundations of the Russia-Russia-Russia bullshite were destroyed before Weissmann's work even started.
A week? Dude.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:30 pm to Indefatigable
Also, I’m still looking for just one person to explain why anyone on any side of the political aisle would want this issue of immunity to linger.
Why would Trump want that? Why would Trump’s supporters want that?
Why would ANYONE want that?
Why would Trump want that? Why would Trump’s supporters want that?
Why would ANYONE want that?
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:30 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Smith's denial of Trump's rights have nothing to do with due process?
Because the article had absolutely nothing to do with the substance of my post
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:31 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:what deprivation of rights are you talking about? The request for expedited SCOTUS review—the only thing I have posted about in this thread—is not mentioned in the article.
Smith's denial of Trump's rights have nothing to do with due process?
The article discusses why the charges themselves are depriving Trump of rights. It does not discuss what Rebel and I went back and forth about—which is whether merely asking for expedited review of the immunity question is a due process violation.
Asking for SCOTUS review is not depriving anyone anywhere of any rights. SCOTUS hypothetically granting same is not depriving anyone anywhere of any rights.
This post was edited on 12/24/23 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:33 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Smith's denial of Trump's rights
Which rights? What denial?
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:33 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The whores peeing on a Moscow bed was debunked as was the Steele Dossier before Mueller was a pipedream. Foundations of the Russia-Russia-Russia bullshite were destroyed before Weissmann's work even started.
The Trump investigation is much more than Steele's bullshite.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:40 pm to Indefatigable
quote:You've asked that previously. It was answered previously.
Why would ANYONE want that?
The fact Smith is a partisan hack POS using lawfare to attack political opposition, does not mean the SCOTUS should allow itself to be dragged into a political maelstrom.
We are in an election year. That timing was by choice of a weaponized DOJ and designed to disable Trump. Turns out, Trump is a resilient SOB. DOJ miscalculated. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which rights? What denial?
quote:
“The indictment is based on lies, and the indictment itself contains a blatant lie by Jack Smith. He describes the speech of January 6th,” Dershowtiz noted. “But he describes the speech in the indictment and deliberately and willfully leaves out the key words of the speech, namely that the president told his people to protest peacefully and patriotically.”
“By leaving out those words. It’s a lie by omission. And under the standards set out in the indictment, you know, Jack Smith could be indicted,” He added. “Theoretically, it’s not going to happen, obviously, under the Ku Klux Klan statute that he says any people who conspire to deny somebody their constitutional rights is guilty of a crime.”
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:46 pm to NC_Tigah
That didn't answer my question.
He's trying to be clever and not making the actual argument you're trying to make.
This went over your head
He's trying to be clever and not making the actual argument you're trying to make.
quote:
And under the standards set out in the indictment, you know, Jack Smith could be indicted
This went over your head
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The fact Smith is a partisan hack POS using lawfare to attack political opposition, does not mean the SCOTUS should allow itself to be dragged into a political maelstrom.
The question of whether a former potus is immune from these type of charges is the exact type of thing I believe SCOTUS needs to rule on. This is the friendliest SCOTUS that the right is ever going to get.
The issue needs to be decided and could have dispensed with the charges altogether. But I guess you guys for some reason want this shite going on during a Trump administration—which is just wild to me. I’d rather he be able to actually govern.
quote:
We are in an election year. That timing was by choice of a weaponized DOJ and designed to disable Trump. Turns out, Trump is a resilient SOB. DOJ miscalculated. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
I don’t understand this point of view. I’ll be voting for Donald Trump next November. Having the charges linger over a Trump administration is an awful thing to choose or hope for. Especially with what will likely be another split congress, or very narrow GOP majorities.
I want SCOTUS to rule on the immunity issue before he’s sworn in on January 20,2025. Otherwise it’s just going to be another issue that’s used to totally render a Trump administration useless. Much like last time.
This post was edited on 12/24/23 at 12:51 pm
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
He pee-d on your mom in Russia, didn't he?
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:51 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
He pee-d on your mom in Russia, didn't he?
wut?
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
You have anger.
To quote the late great Bobby Knight, "if it's inevitable, it's best just to enjoy it."
To quote the late great Bobby Knight, "if it's inevitable, it's best just to enjoy it."
Posted on 12/24/23 at 12:57 pm to Indefatigable
quote:I know you do. It is an incredibly naive viewpoint.
the exact type of thing I believe SCOTUS needs to rule on.
If SCOTUS decided early for or against, opposition partisans would be (justifiably) enraged. SCOTUS would further deny itself and the public the opinions of an intermediate Appellate Court.
There is no reason whatsoever to go there in a ruling this important. Again, the timing is Smith's. Setting a multi-century precedent is not something which should result from a short-circuited process.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 1:25 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
You have anger.
What anger?
I'm about as non-emotional of a person/thinker that you'll find, especially on this board.
Posted on 12/24/23 at 1:27 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
SCOTUS would further deny itself and the public the opinions of an intermediate Appellate Court.
Ultimately worthless. That his point.
Those rulings mean basically nothing in this scenario.
I honestly don't know why you think they have any value in this scenario.
Like I get the argument about timing and politicizing the issue, but this one? Not very strong
This post was edited on 12/24/23 at 1:29 pm
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News