- 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: Special counsel asks Supreme Court to rule quickly whether Trump can be prosecuted
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:44 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:44 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
Maybe on the over valueing assets on loan applications, but everything else we would.
Nope. He is being prosecuted solely because he is Trump. Only Trump and those associated with Trump are facing this. The documents were handled the same way or even more securely as the last three Presidents handled them. Not one of them was even investigated.
Hell they found docs in Biden’s garage and nobody cared at all
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 1:46 pm
0
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
SCOTUS should slow walk this. Let it run its course in the Federal appeals system. SCOTUS should hear it in the Fall, then let the electorate weigh in before issuing any ruling.
Why?
I fail to see the reasoning other than wanting that solely because it’s potentially advantageous to Trump individually.
There’s no reason that the electorate needs to go into the election speculating as to whether Trump can even be indicted. Just resolve it now.
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:44 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
He's gotten FAR better treatment that 99.9% of Americans would in Court.
We would ALL be in jail by now. lol
This isn't the gotcha you think it is. It speaks volumes about the fundamental unfairness of our "justice" system.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:45 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
He has nothing and this way he can blame the "conservative" SC...
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:47 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Resolving this question now as opposed to six months from now benefits everyone, except Donald Trump in his individual capacity.
This question doesn’t need to drag on all year.
You are operating under the assumption Trump isn’t convicted. This is kangaroo court.
It benefits them to make sure the trial stays on schedule and create chaos in the GOP right around the time of nomination.
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:49 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
He hasn’t even been charged with that crime. You didn’t know that?
He will be. I saw enough. I liked the dude too. Voted for him twice.
He should have stayed on the sidelines and started his own TV show where he could rant and rave and Monday morning QB everything done by both Parties.
As it stands now, I would really be shocked if they let him be the Nom. I bet the GOP is praying behiond closed doors that he is not allowed to run.
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:50 pm to msutiger
quote:
You are operating under the assumption Trump isn’t convicted.
No, I’m not. Where does that come from?
The question of whether he can even be indicted with these charges at all is a threshold issue that would kill the charges if SCOTUS ruled in Trump’s favor.
Going into an election with one candidate facing charges that may not even be legal and are potentially (as the other side will argue) disqualifying for office is just an unnecessary shite-show.
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:51 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
He will be. I saw enough. I liked the dude too. Voted for him twice.
He should have stayed on the sidelines and started his own TV show where he could rant and rave and Monday morning QB everything done by both Parties.
As it stands now, I would really be shocked if they let him be the Nom. I bet the GOP is praying behiond closed doors that he is not allowed to run.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:53 pm to Indefatigable
quote:My opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with advantageousness to Trump. SCOTUS needs to do what it can to avoid politicizing itself in an election year. If it finds against Smith in an expedited hearing, and thereby scuttles Smith's DC case, its action would appear political. If it finds (incorrectly IMO) that Smith and the Obama judge are correct, the finding would appear political. It sounds as if you are assuming Trump wins in the Fall.
I fail to see the reasoning other than wanting that solely because it’s potentially advantageous to Trump individually.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:56 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No, I’m not. Where does that come from?
By saying it benefits everyone but Trump. The date of the trial was specifically selected to inflict maximum damage to the GOP. Not just Trump. If that trial stays on track and Trump is convicted, it will rip the soul out of the GOP.
quote:
The question of whether he can even be indicted with these charges at all is a threshold issue that would kill the charges if SCOTUS ruled in Trump’s favor.
His chases of the SCOTUS getting him out of this are slim. Even if they know it’s kangaroo court, the conservative judges are not activists like their counterparts. All they can do is interpret the law.
quote:
Going into an election with one candidate facing charges that may not even be legal and are potentially (as the other side will argue) disqualifying for office is just an unnecessary shite-show.
But it’s a good shitshow for the Dems who intend to slide in a replacement nominee. All the attention will be on Trump, not whatever authoritarian they’ve nominated.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:56 pm to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:You don't seem to understand what Trump's J6 argument and effort were? They had nothing to do with "insurrection."
It was just the tip! I swear!
Posted on 12/11/23 at 1:59 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
SCOTUS needs to do what it can to avoid politicizing itself in an election year.
I don’t see this as a political question—at all. I mean, SCOTUS’ doesn’t even hear political questions.
quote:
It sounds as if you are assuming Trump wins in the Fall.
That’s what I don’t get. You and the other poster seem to read that presumption into my analysis and I don’t get why.
I simply think the question of whether a former POTUS can be charged for actions taken in his capacity as POTUS should be answered as quickly as possible given the indictments.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 2:02 pm to msutiger
quote:
By saying it benefits everyone but Trump.
In so saying—I was referring to the electorate broadly. Not the DNC or Biden, etc.
quote:
If that trial stays on track and Trump is convicted, it will rip the soul out of the GOP.
I mean yea. But that’s just the hand that’s being played. Doesn’t mean that SCOTUS shouldn’t hear the threshold issue now.
quote:
But it’s a good shitshow for the Dems who intend to slide in a replacement nominee. All the attention will be on Trump, not whatever authoritarian they’ve nominated.
None of this is a compelling legal reason to delay SCOTUS addressing the issue.
The question of whether Trump can be indicted at all for these charges needs to be address as soon as possible because having that question linger over the election is just begging for a disaster.
Decide the threshold question, regardless of how it lands.
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 12/11/23 at 2:02 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
I don't understand how the Supreme Court could rule on anything yet.
Trump hasn't been convicted of or charged with insurrection or rebellion!
Am I missing something? (I'm aware of the insane blood lust the dems have to "get Trump")
Also, Smith's record presenting cases to the SCOTUS isn't very good. lol
Good point, but this is a very dangerous and sinister move. If the Supremes side with Smith, then Trump (and our country) is in real danger. If they rule against Smith then it gives Biden and his son a legal pass.
They should refuse to look at it.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 2:03 pm to Godfather1
quote:
What are the chances they tell him to let the Appeal Court process play out first? Is Jack afraid of what they might say?
He doesn't want the appeals to drag out past elections. He knows that's what will happen.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 2:04 pm to Swazla
quote:
If they rule against Smith then it gives Biden and his son a legal pass.
No, it does not. At least not necessarily.
This decision is going to come down to a determination of whether Trump’s alleged actions that are subject to the indictment were performed as a function of the duties of his office.
It’s a case specific determination that will not have much bearing on the Biden’s.
SCOTUS isn’t going to issue some broad ruling that former POTUS’ can never be charged for things that happened while they were in office. The ruling will be narrowly restricted to this case and whether Trump’s allegedly illegal conduct was within the duties of his office.
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 12/11/23 at 2:06 pm to Godfather1
quote:
Gee. What’s your hurry, Jack?
Jack Smith is hoping to test the American people. He wants to know whether a majority of the American people are completely disengaged from the political reality of the past 7 years, people who simply don't give a shite about mass government corruption or is there a majority that's had it with the D.C. Uniparty Globalists and their cultural Marxist minions. If they somehow prevent Trump from running in 2024 there's the possibility of mass societal unrest, the lawfare against Trump is a tool being used by the Anti Trump Consortium to help determine the mindset and actions of the American people.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 2:06 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Dude!
I don’t see this as a political question
Walk this ahead a couple of months. If SCOTUS finds the Smith case is unconstitutional, you would be able hear the DC Democrat wailing about a political SCOTUS from Sarah Palin's front porch in Alaska.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 2:07 pm to I B Freeman
You have become intoxicated with your own farts. Take a break and sober up.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 2:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Dude! Walk this ahead a couple of months.
I mean political question in the context of SCOTUS jurisprudence.
Not “questions whose answers may have resultant political implications”.
But regardless, I don’t see how letting his question of whether Trump can even be tried at all for these specific charges to linger throughout the election benefits…….anyone. Shouldn’t everyone want that answered as soon as possible?
This post was edited on 12/11/23 at 2:12 pm
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News