Starting in January the Supreme Court will have to deal with Trump no matter how they have tried to avoid it. How about some Constitutional crisis to open the year ?!!

3 major cases are coming up that will have to be decided before the primary season begins in February -March.

The first one Inspector Javert Jack Smith has asked SCOTUS to decide if Trump enjoys executive immunity from prosecution. Smith wants a quick decision because the DC trial is scheduled to begin in March.

SCOTUS agreed to fast track that decision bypassing the normal appeals process.

Supreme Court agrees to quick review of Trump’s presidential immunity claim | Courthouse News Service (https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-asked-to-consider-trumps-presidential-immunity-claim/)

They have already also agreed to make a decision on some of the appeals from the January 6 riot cases. How those cases are settled could have an impact on Smith's charges against Trump.

It involves his charge that Trump "corruptly obstructing an official proceeding ".


A Supreme Court case may unravel Jack Smith's case against Trump (msnbc.com) (https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-jack-smith-case-trump-rcna129857)


The last one has not officially been appealed yet . But I expect an appeal within days.

It is this nonsense in Colorado where the State Supreme Court (or rather 4 of 7 justices ) has decided that Trump can be removed from the November ballot in the state based on incredibly fanciful interpretations of the 14th amendment insurrection clause. The state is scheduled to print it's primary ballots January 5 . So if SCOTUS is to hear the case it will be by the 1st week in January .

The Compost's Ruth Marcos argues that SCOTUS should toss the case unanimously and that Trump should remain on the ballot.

Opinion | The Supreme Court should toss the Colorado case - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/20/colorado-trump-ballott-supreme-court/)

I completely agree . It was a sad day in 2000 when the court had to intervene in the Presidential election. It set a terrible precedent that has impacted every Presidential election since .

Do we believe in the democratic process or not ? If yes then we need to honor the people's choices right or wrong. This is especially true in this case where the state court invented charges ;and they are the judge ,jury and executioner against Trump for crimes he has never been charged with.

New York is also looking into how they can remove Trump from the ballot. Now Trump has no chance of winning in either state, but it still illustrates just how terrified these people are of Trump. TDS seems to be more contagious than COVID.

As I noted ;this movement has to be stopped and now. I put this right up there with the Ayatollahs deciding who is worthy to be on Iranian ballots .

Completely agree.

but it still illustrates just how terrified these people are of Trump.
Not terrified of -- instead, disgusted by.

This has every opportunity to benefit Trump. It will fire up his base even more than it is presently, and they will all show up to vote next November, whereas Biden's campaign in mired in mediocrity, unable to point to a single outstanding accomplishment during his term. Additionally, it puts him in the victim chair, and makes the dems look like a third world, banana republic, making political decisions altogether outside of the rule of law.

It certainly seems to reflect a sense of desperation on the dem side. They see the train wreck approaching.

Biden (AND Trump) is not a sure thing yet.

None of that matters . All that matters is that a judiciary is meting out punishment for a crime that Trump is not being charged with .There was no trial . No due process. No jury finding him guilty of treason and insurrection (which has never been legally defined.) beyond reasonable doubt based on a preponderance of the evidence.

I add that they all stretched the meaning of the 14th amendment insurrection clause beyond reasonable limits .

The clause was added to bar former Confederates from serving as "officers " in the government .Yes if Trump led a secession from the US he would be guilty . An officer of the government is an appointed position not an elected one (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) The people in a democracy have the power to choose their leaders .

The clause was added to bar former Confederates from serving as "officers " in the government .
Confederates??? Yes, they are definitely that with a capital C!

Yes if Trump led a secession from the US he would be guilty.
And he will lead a session from the U.S. in the future. He has even warned us that those are his plans WHEN he's elected.

he can't be convicted on what someone thinks he will do . 'The Atlantic ' has a whole issue on Trump will be a dictator . All it is is nothing more than expensive cat litter .


Confederates??? Yes, they are definitely that with a capital C! and I suppose he was around in 1865 when the issue applied . Trump's America first agenda is hardly a rebellious movement .

And again this is a sidebar to the real issue. If the people can't choose who they elect than we do not have a democracy .

Confederates??? Yes, they are definitely that with a capital C!Thus strongly indicating that you have no idea of what a "Confederate" is.

It's just all TDS. There is no other explanation for it. He has a big mouth and can certainly be contentious, but he does have a functioning brain and a record of success unlike the person currently occupying the office.


If the people can't choose who they elect than we do not have a democracy . You nailed it, Tom.

Thus strongly indicating that you have no idea of what a "Confederate" is.
Then teach me!

It's just all TDS. There is no other explanation for it. He has a big mouth and can certainly be contentious, but he does have a functioning brain and a record of success unlike the person currently occupying the office.
His brain is no longer working. What successes? Biden is a non-issue. Trump is the topic on the table.

A Confederate (Capital "C", as you said) is a supporter of the Confederate States of America. A person would have to be foolish to suggest that Donald Trump and other repubs are really Confederates, so I know you could not be suggesting that.

What successes did Trump have? Well, there would be a great economy, record low unemployment, low inflation, stable relations with foreign nations, "rule of law" appointees to the Supreme Court, 7 million new jobs, great increase in middle class income, and lowered taxes. Shall I continue???

The Dems again prove they will use banana republic tactics to achieve their aims . They keep on bleating " defending democracy" as they flush it down the toilet .

The Capital C Confederates left the union and formed a separate nation .The clause in the 14th was designed to prevent those people ;who dragged the US into a war that cost us 600,000 + lives ,from serving in government .

That is what the plain text says .


No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

There is no legal definition of what "insurrection " is . And Trump has not been even charged with insurrection or treason let alone tried or convicted of it .

How many in Congress could be charged with such for their part in fomenting insurrection in the George Floyd BLM and Antifa riots ?

How often was the Portland Courthouse fire bombed by rioters egged on by Dems in Congress who later contributed to the defense fund of the rioters ? Was that not giving aid and comfort ? Was that not disrupting and official proceeding ? Was it not insurrection when the White House was stormed and Secret Service had to move Trump to a safer location ?

For perspective . Whether Trump caused the Capitol riot or not ;can that be compared with forming a break away rebellion that caused a war claiming 600,000 lives ? Remember the US did not have a large population. In today's numbers we'd be looking at over 6 million deaths. It is proof that the Dems suffer from historical illiteracy for them to think it comparable.
For the record . one Capitol Police officer was beaten and died. One rioter was shot in cold blood by a Capitol Police officer 3 died of natural causes . 5 deaths total. The so called insurrectionists did not come with guns blazing . They came with cell phones taking selfies. The few that assaulted police of course deserve punishment fitting their crime.

Oh the irony . The justices in the Colorado Supreme Court are using a clause in the Constitution designed to punish representatives from break away states . The effect of their ruling if upheld will make Colorado ,and any state that goes along with it essentially break away states. Call it a Confederacy of TDS sufferers .

The more this goes on, the more I wonder, "What does Trump have on these people? What are they so afraid of?"

They took down the Tea Party movement easily with deep state tactics . They had thought that they had eliminated the last resistance to the uniparty dictatorship .

Then Trump upset the apple cart and defeated Evita while attacking the deep state legitimacy .
That was his unforgivable crime. Defeating him at the polls in 2020 was not enough . They have to make an example of him so no one else will seriously oppose them in the future .They will tolerate a McCaine ;Bush or a Romney . Outsiders to the club need not apply.

Still waiting for the release of the Epstein guest list . Will believe it when I see it

Judge orders release of associates named in Jeffrey Epstein lawsuit documents | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-financier-names-released-8ce48f838d61c853efe643977ccc1bb1)

That was a really good observation, Tom. I copied that to Facebook.

The Epstein guest list is going to be a struggle.

1 down SCOTUS decided to NOT fast track the Appeal of the DC court rejecting Trump's immunity contention. The appeal has to go to the Circus court . No doubt the court will rule against Trump ;which will set up a SCOTUS case anyway.

But the timeline blows a hole in the prosecution's plan to have a trial during the early primaries.

The Supreme Court tells special counsel Jack Smith to go away, in a big victory for Trump - Vox (https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/12/22/24012602/supreme-court-jack-smith-donald-trump-delay-election-theft-criminal-trial)

The trial date is in jeopardy

Sometimes I think it might as well be called the Epstein guess list.

The Colorado Supreme Court consists of 7 Dem Justices. The decision was 4-3 which means that not all Dems are bat sh*t crazy.

One of the dissenters was Chief Justice Brian Boatright

He concluded his dissent this way

My opinion that this is an inadequate cause of action is dictated by the facts of this case, particularly the absence of a criminal conviction for an insurrection related offense.¶272 The questions presented here simply reach a magnitude of complexity not contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement statute. The proceedings below ran counter to the letter and spirit of the statutory timeframe because the Electors’ claim overwhelmed the process. In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code. Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at issue here. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent

23SA300.pdf (state.co.us) (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf)

Michigan Supreme court rejected attempts to remove Trump from the ballot . SCOTUS has to intervene or we will have all 50 states making the determination piecemeal . It will be an unacceptably chaotic situation.

Would it be true that SCOTUS cannot intervene without a case being brought to it first? Would that case be the Colorado situation?

Well, here's the case. "Colorado to include Trump on 2024 primary ballot as state GOP appeals to Supreme Court."


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/colorado-include-trump-2024-primary-ballot-state-gop-appeals-supreme-court

SCOTUS will ultimately have to make a ruling . Too many states have made it an issue.

latest one is from Louisiana

Chalmette woman files lawsuit to keep Donald Trump OFF of the 2024 presidential ballot in Louisiana - the latest in a string of state-level legal actions in response to Jan 6 claims (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/chalmette-woman-files-lawsuit-to-keep-donald-trump-off-of-the-2024-presidential-ballot-in-louisiana-the-latest-in-a-string-of-state-level-legal-actions-in-response-to-jan-6-claims/ar-AA1m8DkZ?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=b30c86b332aa45b684022735994f539b&ei=16)

The interesting thing about Louisiana is that it's a RED state with a possibility of keeping Trump off the ballot.

Now Maine's Sec of State has unilaterally decided to remove Trump from the primary ballot because she decided that Trump violated the 14th amendment. This is way out of control. SCOTUS must rule on this the first day of January they return from their holiday IMO

Maine Bars Trump From 2024 Primary Ballot, Joining Colorado - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/us/maine-trump-ballot.html#:~:text=The%20official%20in%20Maine%2C %20Secretary,6%20attack%20on%20the%20Capitol.)


Both Colorado and Maine have primaries on Super Tuesday March 5 . So there is not a lot of time. Ballots need to be printed pronto .

2024 Presidential Election Calendar - 270toWin (https://www.270towin.com/2024-presidential-election-calendar/)

The reality is that they want Trump removed because they don't like him. All of the references to the 14th Amendment is just window dressing. It's as silly as denying Biden a place on the ballot because a state believes he has committed impeachable offenses.

No blue or swing state will remove Clueless Joe from the ballot . No red state or swing state is going to remove Trump from the ballot . If he wins the red states and the swing states he won in 2016 then it does not matter .

EXCEPT perhaps Maine.

The reason for that is Maine does not do winner takes all electors . They award them proportionately to the popular vote results

2016 Evita got 3 electors and Trump 1 . It takes 270 electors to win. In a close election that divided result could matter .

Either way SCOTUS has to put a stop to this nonsense.

The idiocy of this is mind boggling when you consider that the whole purpose of the 14th amendment was to prevent states from making laws that restricts rights. Now you have states determining who is eligible to run for President ?

They keep on suggesting that Sec 3 of the amendment disqualifies Trump . But Sec 5 says
"the Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
It does not say the Colorado Supreme court has the power . It does not say the clown Sec State of Maine has the unilateral power .

Now Congress did pass an insurrection act.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383)

But with all the charges against Trump ;not one charges him with insurrection let alone convicted of it .



One of the dissenting justices, Carlos Samour, said in a lengthy opinion that a lawsuit is not a fair mechanism for determining Trump's eligibility for the ballot because it deprives him of his right to due process, noting that a jury has not convicted him of insurrection.
"Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past - dare I say, engaged in insurrection - there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office," Samour said.

Trump barred from Colorado primary ballot for role in US Capitol attack | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/legal/colorado-supreme-court-disqualifies-trump-holding-office-filing-2023-12-19/)

No red state or swing state is going to remove Trump from the ballot Not too sure of that when your examples above included Louisiana.

That is going nowhere . Anyone can file a lawsuit . Who is Ashley Reeb and what is her standing to sue ?

ok She is a Dem so she has no say in who is on the Repub ballot. She is not an elector . The Repub primary is not open .Based on that she has no standing. Not that there isn't a chance some idiot judge or 2 would rule in her favor. But the suit will be struck down.


What she is is a rabid lefty . Her social media posts prove it.

Ash (@DatParishGirl) / X (twitter.com) (https://twitter.com/DatParishGirl)

BLM / pronoun confusion Her 15 minutes of fame ended 14 minutes after she filed

I don't doubt any of that, but in the current wild, wild west of federal courts, who knows what could happen, at least temporarily.

The WSJ editorial board opines that Maine's Sec State Shenna Bellows is playing right into Trump's hand.


Ms. Bellows is a former ACLU official, served in the state Senate as a Democrat, and ran for the U.S. Senate against Republican Susan Collins. Her ruling gets her name in the headlines and perhaps will be a boost in her next try for higher office. She has added nothing to the legal merits, though she has reinforced Mr. Trump’s campaign narrative.
Maine is unlikely to matter in the GOP primary, and meantime Ms. Bellows is giving Mr. Trump another chance to tell Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans that Democrats are attempting to steal the 2024 election before the voting begins. Democrats really do want to run against Mr. Trump next year.


Maine Casts Its Ballot for Trump - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/maine-secretary-of-state-shenna-bellows-donald-trump-ballot-2024-jan-6-8b3fff9d?mod=opinion_lead_pos1)

The emperor's Rasputin ;David Axelrod , agrees and warns about the danger of denying Trump a place on the ballot.

Removing Trump from the primary ballot would 'rip the country apart': David Axelrod (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2023/12/30/news/removing-trump-from-the-primary-ballot-would-rip-the-country-apart-david-axelrod/)

The Epstein guest list is going to be a struggle.

yes for Bubba and others .

Bill Clinton to be identified as "Doe 36" and named over 50 times in upcoming Epstein doc dump (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2023/12/31/news/bill-clinton-to-be-identified-as-doe-36-and-named-over-50-times-in-upcoming-epstein-doc-dump/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost_sitebuttons)

I was just about to post that. It's not a done deal yet, but it seems likely. Then the question will become, "Now what?" Of course BC being on the list doesn't make him guilty, but it sure looks bad.

a lot of 'A listers' are panicking. Perhaps the only one more prominent than Bubba is Prince Randy Andy

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCxg11kWIAAeU2v?format=jpg&name=small

Will be interesting to see how all of the supposedly anti-sexual assault dems react to this. They were all over the place with the non-assault by Kavenaugh. Let's see what they say about BC.

Unsurprisingly, CNN news mentions the Clinton story not at all. They are too busy with a long section about how wonderful the economy will be in 2024. In other words, vote Biden.

Looks like SCOTUS is going to decide about Trump being removed from ballots. Colorado will be the test case.


Supreme Court to decide if Trump banned from Colorado ballot in historic case. The highest court said that the briefs are due by Jan 31.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-decide-if-trump-banned-from-colorado-ballot-historic-case

cutting it close
hearing the case by end of January does not mean they will have a decision. The primary date is March 5 and ballots have to be printed .

The DC Circus Court denied Trump's appeal for immunity . Now the ball is in SCOTUS' court two days before they are expected to hear arguments in the Colorado ballot case .

No further commentary necessary . I see no outcome to this election cycle that ends well

Trump is employing a strategery of strategic delay.

It seems to be working . SCOTUS already refused to fast track Jack Smith's attempt to get an immediate ruling on Trump's claim of immunity as well as his claim that the charges are double jeopardy .
That is why the DC Circus had to rule on the case. That took 28 days .

Now Trump has 90 days to file an appeal to SCOTUS . That brings it to mid-May

The DC Circus tried to pressure Trump's team to file by February 12 . But it is likely that Trump will use the full time allotted ;and SCOTUS will most likely have no choice but the hear the case . They only need 4 of the justices to agree to hear it .

Given the way SCOTUS works ,they probably will not rule until mid-summer at the end of the session ;or they can stall (as I suspect they really want ) until November after the election.

But if they rule against Trump then the trial could not begin until late summer the earliest . Smith's team believes the trial will last 2-3 months .

My information was a little off. The DC Circus in exchange for Trump filing by the 12 will freeze the trial prep by Judge Tanya Chutkan . If Trump does not appeal to SCOTUS by Monday then the DC Circus will give her the authority to proceed with the weeks of pre-trial proceedings .

Given that fact ;most observers believe Trump will file his appeal to SCOTUS Monday because if he doesn't take the deal , he will have to hope that SCOTUS issues a stay of the proceedings . That is probably a risk he does not want to take. Theoretically she could have the trial during the appeal with only the verdict depending on SCOTUS' decision if he doesn't take the deal. (I assume a DC jury will find him guilty)

If SCOTUS accepts to hear Trump's appeal ,then the ball in in their court and they can decide when to reach a decision. I do not believe they wish to be involved in the politics of the election and could very well delay their decision.

If so and Trump wins the election ,he is the boss of the Justice Dept . I expect he will fire Jack Smith ;and possibly issue pardons to himself.

If SCOTUS refuses to hear the immunity case then the Appeals Court decision stands.

issue pardons to himself.That could easily backfire big-time.

This whole thing makes my head hurt.

It is unchartered territory. Legal experts disagree if he can. It would not help him in NYC and Georgia where this legal authority is local . Those cases however are the weakest ones against him in my opinion. The documents case is where he is most vulnerable. He got a big help this week when the DOJ decided to not make charges against Quid.

A blind person could see the difference in how his case was handled compared to Quid.

The problem is that political expedience has become so prevalent that most liberal dems will not, under any circumstances, make an appeal for equal treatment under the law. That was obvious when the Kavanaugh hearings were held, and it's even more obvious now. Getting Trump is more important to them than the rule of law.

wait until you read what Special Prosecutor Robert Hur wrote about Quid in his report .

Basically a jury would find it reasonable to conclude that Quid is too feeble and suffers memory loss.

Quid is running for 4 more years as President .

Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023.

We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.


Report on the Investigation Into Unauthorized Removal, Retention, and Disclosure of Classified Documents Discovered at Locatinos Including the Penn Biden Center and the Delaware Private Residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (justice.gov) (https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf)

This is a variation of the theme Comey used for Evita .

No reasonable prosecutor would charge

No reasonable jury would convict

Basically a jury would find it reasonable to conclude that Quid is too feeble and suffers memory loss.
And tRump is grossly overweight, has an unnatural skin color, wears a dead orange animal on his head, always wears the same clothes (do they ever get laundered?), cheated his way into wealth, isn't the brightest bulb on the marquee, is a misogynist and racist, has declining mental health, and hates most foods unless they're from McDonald's.

And tRump is grossly overweight, has an unnatural skin color, wears a dead orange animal on his head, always wears the same clothes (do they ever get laundered?), cheated his way into wealth, isn't the brightest bulb on the marquee, is a misogynist and racist, has declining mental health, and hates most foods unless they're from McDonald's.What a kind, thoughtful observation. Yep, there is no TDS at work here. Being unable to see the irony in claiming Trump has "declining mental health" is rather startling. Also, would you consider an enthusiastic supporter of Stacey Abrams wanting to comment on Trump's weight to be a serious case of selective amnesia?

This DOJ observation is worth thinking long and hard about. "...a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness." It certainly seems to imply that he is not presently capable of a "mental state of willfulness."

49579

Unlike the "kind, thoughtful" BDS I was comparing it to? Biden is thin and good looking. Stacey isn't running for president, hoping to become a dictator, a czar, an emperor.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3895487#post3895487)
Basically a jury would find it reasonable to conclude that Quid is too feeble and suffers memory loss.

Actually that was not me saying it . That was Special Prosecutor Hur ;appointed by Quid's partisan AG Garland who wrote that in his investigation report .

I did not write this ;he did:

Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023.

.....sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.


It was popular at the beginning of Trump's term for the TDS crowd to suggest that Trump should be removed from office under terms of the 25th amendment because of the age and competency question . I contend that Hur is planting the seed for the Dems to use if Quid is (God forbid) elected to a 2nd term.

Quid is not being charged because “Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”

But he’s okay to be POTUS ???????????????????????????????????????

Biden is thin and good looking.Even if that was true ("good looking"...really??) do you really think that's what it's all about? Good thing you weren't around in Roosevelt's presidency. "Just an overweight, balding, wheelchair bound man who wants to be an emperor!!" Perhaps you should confine your comments to issues of policy and not to hateful, personal rhetoric.

Do you not find it puzzling that, as a person who repeatedly argues for a non-judgmental, inclusive, diverse, and kind worldview, you can be so capable of spouting such a scorching diatribe as you did? In what way is it not essentially hate speech?


Stacey isn't running for presidentSo it's OK to be "grossly overweight" as long as you are merely wanting to become a senator? Hmmm. At any rate, your eagerness to bodyshame is, on a liberal level, appalling.


hoping to become a dictator, a czar, an emperor.It would be helpful if you would make at least a feeble effort to stick to the truth.


“Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”It should be an alarming statement to every American. I often wonder how many foreign leaders sit in amazement at how America could have elected a man with such extensive cognitive problems. If he was teaching in an elementary school, he would be asked to retire.

From yesterday's presser.


Shortly after insisting that his memory was "fine," Biden proceeded to refer to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi as the "president of Mexico."

Hmmm.

One more observation. Isn't it interesting that the DOJ is establishing a habit of turning a blind eye to the illegal activities of democrat presidential candidates? First it was HC who had plainly broken the law but was not prosecuted, and now the same is true of President Biden. The blind lady holding the scales must be weeping.

At least tRump isn't mentally ill and acting like a spoiled child. ***Trump is simply channeling Hitler and the Nazis with claims about America’s blood being poisoned by non-white human “vermin” and “Democrats” and other traitors from “within."***
https://www.salon.com/2024/02/09/laughing-at-a-diminished-donald-wont-diminish-the-maga/?lh_aid=3547785&lh_cid=9dr3hrdb0e&lh_em=ceebee1110%40yahoo.com&di=80a26353f1163dcb882196fab2afd23e

Rather interestingly, your article did not link to any source showing that Trump actually made those comments. Strange, don't you think?

At any rate, this is what I found of what he actually said. “illegal immigration is poisoning the blood of our nation. They’re coming from prisons, from mental institutions — from all over the world.” It clearly seems to be a reference to illegal immigrants including those released from prisons and mental institutions. I have found no references to "non-white vermin". Have you?

As usual, you demur on commenting on questions raised about your own scorched earth diatribe on this site.

This much of your statement I agree with. "At least tRump isn't mentally ill and acting like a spoiled child." You did get that part right, though he actually does act like a spoiled child far too often.

you do understand that Special Prosecutor Hur ;in a report of his investigation that he was NOT required to release (AG Garland must've given the thumbs up ); stated that Quid and Trump both violated the laws about classified documents retention . But ,he says ; the difference is that Quid is a feeble old man with memory loss who can't remember when his son Beau died . He said he would not prosecute because a jury basically would sympathize with Quid's obvious mental decline.

This whatabout -Trumpism has no meaning to me . I have already said I do not favor Trump's return to office.

Let's move on . Super Tuesday is March 5 . State of the Union Address by Quid is March 7 . It is almost a given that Trump will sweep Super Tuesday and will have wrapped up the Repub nomination by then . My bold prediction is that Quid will announce at the SOTU Address that he will step down as President if not before

I feel the same way about Trump now that I did in 2016. He has a big mouth which he chooses not to control and simply says whatever he is thinking at that moment. However, he seems to see our current situation pretty clearly and given his likely opponent, voting Trump is my only true option.


the difference is that Quid is a feeble old man with memory loss who can't remember when his son Beau died . He said he would not prosecute because a jury basically would sympathize with Quid's obvious mental decline.A chilling commentary on the mental disability of our current pres. Thankfully he is "thin and good looking", so I guess all is well?

got me ask French President Mitterrand


Biden confuses French president Macron with ex-leader Mitterrand (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2024/02/05/news/biden-confuses-french-president-macron-with-ex-leader-mitterrand/)

A chilling commentary on the mental disability of our current pres. Thankfully he is "thin and good looking", so I guess all is well?
As opposed to the fat, ugly, foul-mouthed, lazy, piggish one, The Rascal U Might Punch.

fat, ugly, foul-mouthed, lazy, piggish one, The Rascal U Might Punch.Good grief. What a hate-filled rant. Doesn't this ever embarrass you? Truly, I'm embarrassed for you.

got me ask French President MitterrandThat would be the Mitterrand who has been dead for nearly thirty years. It's on the level of Macron saying he had recently met with Ronald Reagan, except that Mitterrand has been dead a good bit longer than Reagan.

Have I mentioned that I met with Churchill a few weeks ago?

Kamala Harris, coming off of her breathtaking successes along the southern border (Extreme SARC), has decided that telling the truth about the pres is completely out of order. "Kamala Harris angrily attacks special counsel who spotlighted Biden memory lapses as 'politically motivated'. Harris calls Hur's report detailing Biden memory lapses 'gratuitous, inaccurate and inappropriate'.

I guess it's good that KH would stand up and defend ole What's His Name against these wicked people who seem intent on telling the truth.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/kamala-harris-angrily-attacks-special-counsel-spotlighted-biden-memory-lapses-politically-motivated

Kam the Sham has always been Clueless Joes insurance policy.

Bill Maher's take on things.


"In the middle of explaining that he's perfectly fine and he doesn't mix things up, he mixed up who the president of Egypt El-Sisi and said he was the president of Mexico. This is like claiming in front of your wife that you're not a cheater when the burner phone goes off," Maher joked. We knew he was old when we elected him, alright? Joe- he's like that goldfish you get at the fair- don't get attached."

If nothing else is clear ,it is that the deep state wants Quid to move on .

Hur did not have to write his comments ;and Garland did not have to release them . It would've been completely within the rules to
1 not make a report
2 to make a report and not release it

3 Hur made it a point to differentiate the Trump and Quid cases . Although they both got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar ; Hur pointed out that Trump conspired to obstruct the investigation while Quid cooperated

He could've ended his report there and not bring up Quid's declining mental state.

If fact ;as an excuse for not indicting his report is lame . It is the job of a prosecutor to collect evidence of probable cause ;and to present that evidence to a grand jury. It was not his job to say that he would not bring charges because Quid is a feeble vegetable and that would make a jury sympathetic .

There had to be another motive .

It was a stroke a genius to do so . Quid had to call a presser to reassure the public that he was mentally competent to stand trial . Even that Quid blew.

The seed has now been planted . As long as he is in the race he will have to address it.

Did you see the part where he addressed his son's death . He said that the family honors Beau every Memorial Day. He is still either lying or has somehow convinced himself that his son died in service in Iraq.

Well said. When one's opponents throw barbs, then that can be tossed aside as being nothing more than politics, but when one's ALLIES assault you, then it makes the accusations seem quite believable. This is all a progression stirred on by an absolute terror of DT becoming pres again. I have to believe it's based on the fact that he knows, or at least is quite willing to find out, where the bodies are buried, and the deep state cannot allow that to happen.

An interesting question concerns who JB's replacement will be. I'll make two statements about that. It WON'T be VP Harris. It very well MIGHT be Michelle Obama.

Jack Smith again urged SCOTUS to hurry up.

20240214180323991_23A745_Trump v. United States_Gov. stay resp_FINAL.pdf (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A745/300627/20240214180323991_23A745_Trump%20v.%20United%20Sta tes_Gov.%20stay%20resp_FINAL.pdf)

The clock is ticking .Can he get Trump tried ;convicted ; and jailed before the November 5 elections ?

Does his Inspector Javert zeal represent a breach in Justice Dept guidelines ?

You betcha.

9-85.500 Actions that May Have an Impact on an Election
Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See § 9-27.260 (https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.260). Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an issue under this provision requires consultation with the Public Integrity Section, and such action shall not be taken if the Public Integrity Section advises that further consultation is required with the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General.


Justice Manual | 9-85.000 - Protection of Government Integrity | United States Department of Justice (https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-85000-protection-government-integrity#9-85.500)

SCOTUS has agreed to hear the Trump immunity case . I predict they will mostly reject his claim of absolute immunity . What they did was buy Trump time. More than anything else 'SCOTUS does NOT want the election to be decided by the judiciary .

December SCOTUS declined to hear Jack Smith's request for an immediate ruling opting for his appeal to go through the process. The Circus court rejected Trump's claim setting the stage for a SCOTUS hearing . But SCOTUS could've let the Circus decision stand . They opted to hear the case.

Time keeps on ticking . Now SCOTUS will hear the case. The more it is delayed ;the less likely that a Trump DC trial will happen before the November elections .

When they get around to it ;I would be shocked if they ruled the President has absolute immunity . They may go all Solomon and split the baby . But I doubt it . It is frankly a nonsense assertion that a President has
'absolute immunity ' .

Now a clown judge in Illinois decided Trump can't be on their primary ballot . SCOTUS will have to rule sooner than later on this issue. The case that state's can remove a national candidate from a ballot based on their reading of the 14th amendment is lame . SCOTUS needs to immediately shut down these local yokels .


In NY Trump said he cannot possibly come up with almost $half billion bond . He countered that he could post $100 million. A blood sucking judge rejected his proposal. State Attorney General Letitia James can't wait to start seizing Trump assets. This is a clear 8th amendment violation . But Trump could be in a major financial squeeze through the election cycle due to this plunder .

Another defeat

The 11th Circus court refused former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadow's request to move the Georgia RICO charges against him to Federal Court .

Letitia James has another ox to gore . Fresh off her apparent win against the Trump empire ,he is going after big beef.

You see ;she thinks that cows are ruining the air in NY with too much flatulence. (I kid you not) Every day I go to bed thinking the world can't get weirder . The next morning I find I am wrong .

Of course her real aim is not greener cleaner air . Her real aim is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

She's going after the big dog . JBS



JBS is a Brazil based meat packer ;one of the biggest . She contends that they only made a commitment to net zero by 2040 as a marketing trick to boost sales. Cows fart ;and when cows fart ,they release methane. JBS raises a lot of cows.

JBS is also up for an IPO .
Brazilian Meatpacker JBS to Pursue U.S. Listing - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/brazilian-meatpacker-jbs-to-pursue-u-s-listing-b466f695)

But JBS is encountering opposition from envirowackos . James is just hitching a ride on the opposition train hoping to extort the company .

The Brazilian firm said in a statement it disagrees with the attorney general’s decision, adding: “JBS will continue to partner with farmers, ranchers and our food system partners around the world to help feed a growing population while using fewer resources and reducing agriculture’s environmental impact. Our belief that American agriculture can help sustainably feed the world is undeterred.”

https://latinfinance.com/daily-brief/2024/02/29/jbs-hit-with-us-suit-ahead-of-ipo/ .

She contends that they only made a commitment to net zero by 2040 as a marketing trick to boost sales. She is likely right about that. It's why companies need to actively push back against the Cancel Culture. "Yes, our cows fart as do water buffalo, deer, PEOPLE, mountain goats, and so forth. It's part of life. Get over it." Instead, they make these silly social media proclamations getting to "net zero". I think the public can handle the truth.

I have more on James I'm putting on a new posting due to the nature of the subject

Hey Tom, does Haley's win in DC have any significance at all? Would it have been somewhat predictable?

Hey Tom, does Haley's win in DC have any significance at all? Would it have been somewhat predictable?
She'll win in Illinois and probably NY. Plus other states.

She is getting delegates . The significance is that if Trump is forced to withdraw from either lawfare or an unfortunate cheese burger then she will be in a position to possibly control the convention or steer it being the last candidate standing . But since other candidates only "suspended" their campaigns ,I would expect them to throw their hats back in the ring.

It is also significant in that her funding may not dry up. Trump's funding is being severely tested in places where wholesale campaigns are required . The early primaries are retail ;door to door ;shake hands in the local diner . I noticed during the SC primary campaigns there were hardly any Trump signs on the roads while Nikki's signs were all over the place. That was in sharp contrast to 2016 and 2020 when people went to great lengths to place signs for Trump everywhere. Now maybe that was because Trump did not need to invest in the state .Or maybe he thinks he can win it with only his barnstorming rallies .

I am also told that he has a much bigger grass roots organization than his previous campaigns . I saw no evidence of that in SC. While I was subject to frequent phone calls and texts from Nikki's get out the vote effort ; that was not the case with Trump.

Trump will get the nomination if he is not forced to drop out. I am not so sure about the general election. Trump's biggest ally in November is Clueless Joe's performance ;and his ability to (I'll be kind) take advantage of voting rules that are ;shall we say "rigged " to Joe's advantage .

Illinois is an interesting case . It has a "partially open" primary. Voters can cross over only after declaring their party . So Nikki would have to depend on many Dems changing their party registration for the cross over vote to have an impact.

NY is a closed primary . I never voted in one because I refuse to register to any party .


The delegate count so far

Trump 247
Nikki 43 19 of them from DC
DeSantis 9
Vivek 3

The delegate race for primary delegates will be over or close to being over after Tuesday . To secure the nomination a candidate needs a majority around 1215 . Of all the delegates only 104 are not pledged through the primaries . Tuesday 854 Repub delegates will be pledged.

I do not like the primary process at all . I don't like winner takes all primaries and I don't like how states who primary after Super Tuesday are losing influence . All this is doing is creating a situation where campaigning for the Presidency is perpetual. I don't like at all that candidates for a contest in November are all for all practical purposed decided on in early March 8 months before the general elections . 8 months is a lifetime in politics. Much happens in between .

When even the liberal justices can see it, then it must be pretty obvious. The Republic gets a little much-needed help. "Supreme Court rules unanimously for Trump in Colorado ballot disqualification dispute."

There was no other outcome possible . Even if you thought that the insurrection clause had any relevance then how could he be disqualified when he was never even charged let alone found guilty . On top of that there is a compelling double jeopardy case Trump has because he was already tried and acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial

"We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency"

btw I am reading the decision and it effectively ended the nonsense. It is unanimous and broad . The 3 lib justices and Barrett wrote separate concurring opinions that criticized the scope of the decision. Barrett's was mostly for reasons of comity.



The Court has settled a politically charged issuein the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.


The lib justices write


Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in thefuture. In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on theground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thusdisqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork,at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further.Even though “all nine Members of the Court” agree thatthis independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’saction is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind oflegislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

Illinois is an interesting case . It has a "partially open" primary. Voters can cross over only after declaring their party .
Not true.

Illinois is a “partially open” primary state. This allows voters to cross party lines, however, they must first publicly declare their ballot choice.

Illinois Primary Election Process | VOTE411 (https://www.vote411.org/node/12140)

Illinois Primary Election Process | VOTE411 (https://www.vote411.org/node/12140)
I've lived here since 1963, I have lived in several different counties. I have NEVER been asked this.

More voter irregularities in Illinois. Anyone here surprised?

I am just going by what the rules of the State say.

Ballotpedia has the same regulations cited

In Illinois, a voter states his or her affiliation with a political party at the polling place in order to vote in that party's primary.

Primary elections in Illinois - Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/Primary_elections_in_Illinois)

More voter irregularities in Illinois. Anyone here surprised?
Not irregularities. It's none of their beeswax. And the county people know it isn't.

It's a good system . The graveyard residents don't have to register

It's none of their beeswax. And the county people know it isn't.

It's the Daley machine way

Key Largo - Johnny Rocco runs it down (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACTkVM6t_bo)

No,the nasty workers at the voting booths or who open the mail-in ballots can toss the ballots that don't vote for Trump.

In Chi town ? The town of "vote early vote often" ? As long as states foolishly allow drop boxes there is always the potential for ballot stuffing fraud .

Drop boxes will not be available. And Illinois is a lot bigger than Chicago.

Mail Ballot Drop Box Locations | Cook County Clerk (cookcountyclerkil.gov) (https://www.cookcountyclerkil.gov/elections/ways-to-vote/vote-mail/mail-ballot-drop-box-locations)




Drop Boxes
This legislation permits election officials to install drop box sites where voters can submit mail-in ballots without postage. Election officials must collect and process all ballots at the close of each business day, and voters can return vote by mail ballots at any collection site through the close of polls on Election Day. Ensuring voter safety is paramount, and all collection sites must be secured by locks and only opened by election authority personnel. To further bolster security, the State Board of Elections can establish additional guidelines for the collection sites.
Curbside Voting
The legislation permits local election authorities to establish curbside voting for individuals to cast a ballot during early voting or on Election Day. Curbside voting allows certain voters to complete their ballot from their vehicle in a designated zone outside of the polling place. Prior to the new law, this option was only available to voters with a temporary or permanent disability, who may face difficulties entering the polling place. In this instance, the voter may request that two election judges—at least one from the Democratic Party and one from the Republican party—deliver a ballot to the voter at each vehicle where curbside voting is taking place.

Gov. Pritzker Signs Legislation Strengthening Voting Access for Most Vulnerable Residents (illinois.gov) (https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.23059.html)

The real goal (besides getting Trump which is obvious)

If the Dems win their lawfare campaign they deny the people the right to elect leaders outside the swamp or any candidate they don't like for that matter.

If the Dems lose (like they already did with the attempts to keep Trump from the ballot ) then they rail against SCOTUS and set the stage for them to pack SCOTUS ;effectively turning it into an appointed for life legislative body.

This was the goal when FDR threatened to pack the court after the Court swiftly ruled much of his New Deal proposals were unconstitutional. His gambit was defeated ;but it was mission accomplished. SCOTUS was duly intimidated .Other legislation and abuses of power that he and the Dems proposed became law.

I don't think it will come to that. I think SCOTUS will give Trump a big rejection in his attempt to claim he had "absolute immunity" . The question will be how much immunity does SCOTUS find to be constitutional ?


Contrast that to the hands off treatment Quid got from (Republican) prosecutor Robert Hur. Quid is left to be judged in the court of public opinion called the elections . That is where Trump's cases belong.

Trump filed a brief with SCOTUS Tuesday regarding his claim of Presidential Immunity.




“a denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents.”


2024-03-19 - US v. Trump - No. 23-939 - Brief of Petitioner - Final with Tables (002).pdf (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303418/20240319150454815_23-939%20-%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf?utm_source=substac k&utm_medium=email)

That seems to be a compelling argument as the warfare against Trump demonstrates.

All of Jack Smith's prosecutions of Trump depend on how SCOTUS rules on this issue. The oral arguments are set for April 25 . SCOTUS should rule no later than the end of June when the current session concludes.

Another case affecting Trump but directly affecting those charged for the Jan 6 riot will also be heard.

DOJ slapped them with 1512(c)(2), obstruction of an official proceeding. charges

Fischer v. United States - SCOTUSblog (https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fischer-v-united-states/)

330 protesters have been charged ;and about half of Smith's charges against Trump are related .

Judge Beryl Howell (who has sentenced some of the rioters to harsh sentences ) warned prosecutors in December that the cases will backlog the system and suggested that plea deals should be made with the 327 defendants charged .



Howell said from the bench Friday she has heard from fellow judges in Washington's federal district court that they have already come across requests from Jan. 6 defendants who are either charged with or have pleaded guilty to the obstruction charge and are now asking to pause proceedings until the Supreme Court determines whether the statute can be applied to Jan. 6-related conduct.
Howell said that such requests are not "unreasonable" and suggested a federal prosecutor narrow a plea offer involving the 1512 count to focus on another charge to avoid delaying the case. Howell indicated the judges in the court could encounter backlogs in scheduling because of the high court's review.




Federal judge warns of Jan. 6 case backlog as Supreme Court weighs key obstruction statute - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-january-6-case-obstruction-federal-judge/)

Some have been released . Most have been delayed awaiting a SCOTUS ruling.

18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) This is that law that is being used against roughly 350 Jan 6 folks taking selfies in the Capitol . It is also the key statute in Jack Smiths Jan 6 case against Trump.

(c)Whoever corruptly—(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.



18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512)


This is a post Enron law to prevent witness tampering and evidence destruction. It had nothing to do with obstructing Congress from doing an official act.

That is why SCOTUS is hearing oral arguments in the Fisher case challenging the constitutionality of the charges. They are political protesters ;not corporate fraudsters .
It is the ONLY charge against 55 cases .For many others ,counts commonly include nonviolent misdemeanors such as parading in the Capitol or disorderly conduct.
Some like Fisher have violence charges against them . But this particular law has a max sentence of 20 years ;and sentences are already harsh

And more is coming . The Solicitor General arguing the case for Quid ;Elizabeth Prelogar; wants to pile on with Jan 6 being a “uniquely horrifying event” causing “a significant disruption of a governmental function,”

Prelogar is a former clerk for AG Garland and Associate Justice Elena Kagan . She basically admitted in arguments that 18 U.S.C. 1512 is being unevenly applied to Jan 6 defendants and is not being used in other protesters who engage in similar conduct (ie the violence during the George Floyd protests or the Antifa insurrection .

Her testimony has been at best misleading

​���� on X: "The offer the DOJ sent me in August 2021, was a take it or leave it deal to plead guilty to 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) with a range of 41 to 51 months. I refused. Yesterday the Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that non-violent J6ers without priors only face 24 to 26 months for https://t.co/I1FbCvnveJ" / X (twitter.com) (https://twitter.com/FreeStateWill/status/1780669385343971474)


A good summary is found in SCOTUSblog
Justices divided over Jan. 6 participant’s call to throw out obstruction charge - SCOTUSblog (https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge/)

Reading SCOTUSblog take on written arguments filed by Trump and Jack Smith prior to oral arguments about Presidential immunity . Oral arguments are today.

Smith appears to believe that no President has immunity because the rule of law is the
'safeguard" . His take is roll on the floor laughable if you know how Trump has been treated by the DOJ.


"The Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep457/usrep457731/usrep457731.pdf), holding that presidents are immune from civil lawsuits by private parties seeking damages, does not shield former presidents from federal criminal liability, Smith argues. There is a “far weightier interest in vindicating federal criminal law” in a case brought by the executive branch than a civil case brought by a private party, Smith contends. And while the justices in Fitzgerald were worried about the prospect that a flood of private civil suits would affect the president’s decision making, Smith observes that there are a variety of safeguards – ranging from grand juries to the burden of proof at trial and due process protections – to ensure that “prosecutions will be screened under rigorous standards and that no President need be chilled in fulfilling his responsibilities by the understanding that he is subject to prosecution if he commits federal crimes.”

Supreme Court to hear Trump’s bid for criminal immunity - SCOTUSblog (https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/supreme-court-to-hear-trumps-bid-for-criminal-immunity/)

Smith needs to be hired by Babylon Bee. He is a fabulous comedy writer .

So the question comes down to ;do you want a President who is too afraid to make decisions because of potential indictments once out of power ?

Trump's lawyer D. John Saur argued .......

"If a president can be charged, put on trial, and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president's decision making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed,"

Michael Dreeben for the DOJ said

"Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution," "The Framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain."

23-939_l5gm.pdf (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_l5gm.pdf)


Saur did not dispute that Trump could be prosecuted for private acts ;or even public acts AFTER an impeachment conviction .
A fair reading of the Constitution makes that clear


Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.




Article Sec 3 Clause 7

Dreeben conceded that there were some acts a President has immunity for.


It's a tough call and I think SCOTUS will do a Solomonic decision conceding some points while not granting absolute immunity . One of the checks on Presidential power is their liability . Nixon wasn't impeached but still it took a pardon to ultimately clear him.

In Trump's case the question is can a former President be legally harassed by the deep state for acts he took public and private ;before ;during ;and after his term for the audacity of running a campaign ,and winning without their approval.

My reading of this makes me believe that SCOTUS Will take all the time they need before punting this back to the Circus Court with instructions to limit their ruling. What that means is that the Dems' plan to get the Jan 6 case concluded with a rubber stamp conviction before the election likely will not happen.

Further it is clear from the oral arguments that the use of code 18 U.S.C. 1512 applies ONLY to Trump and Trump supporters . First it was argued that immunity applied only to Presidential functions like pardons; appointments; vetoes, and recognition of foreign governments . Then Gorsuch asked if another President could be charged for leading a protest in front of Congress ;and the answer was "probably not"



Gorsuch: Let me just back up, though, just a second to what was a quick exchange with Justice [Bret Kavanaugh] that I just want to make sure I understand. Did you agree that there are some core functions of the executive that, president conduct, that Congress cannot criminalize?
Dreeben: Yes.
Gorsuch: So, is that a form– I mean, we can call it immunity or you can call it “they can’t do it,” but what’s the difference?
Dreeben: We call it an “as applied Article 2 challenge” that–
Gorsuch: Okay. Okay. Can we call it immunity just for shorthand’s sake? So I think we are kind of narrowing the ground of dispute here. It seems to me there is some, some area you, you concede that, in official acts, that Congress cannot criminalize. And now we’re just talking about the scope.
Dreeben: Well, I don’t think I said “just,” but I think it’s a very significant gap between any official act and the small core of exclusive official acts.

Gorsuch: I got that, but I want to explore that, okay? So, for example, let’s say a president leads a mostly peaceful protest sit-in in front of Congress because he objects to a piece of legislation that’s going through. And it, in fact, delays the proceedings in Congress. Now under 1512 C 2 (https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1512/#:~:text=(2)%20otherwise%20obstructs%2C%20influenc es,than%2020%20years%2C%20or%20both.). That might be corruptly impeding an official proceeding. Is that core and therefore immunized or whatever word euphemism you want to use for that. Or is that not core and therefore prosecutable?
Dreeben: Well–
Gorsuch: Without a clear statement that applies to the president.
Dreeben: It’s not, it’s not core. The core kinds of activities that the court has acknowledged are the things that I would run through the Youngstown analysis, and it’s a pretty small set. But things like the pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power to veto legislation, the power to make appointments, these are things that the Constitution specifically allocates to the president. Once you get out–
Gorsuch: So a president then could be prosecuted for the conduct I described after he leaves office?
Dreeben: Probably not. But I want to explain the framework of why I don’t think that that would be prosecution that would be valid.


23-939 (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f2qg.pdf)

The charge against Trump and the Jan 6 rioters is that they disrupted a Congressional proceeding . But from this admission ; it only applies to Trump.





In the document case ,Judge Cannon will allow Trump to file a petition to dismiss based on selective prosecution. That would be the way they went after Trump while giving Quid Pro Joe a pass (Trump has a greater case of possession of classified docs because he was President while most of the docs Quid possessed were obtained while he was a Senator. ) The motion had been sealed pending her review . But now it appears she will go forward with it.

During oral arguments Cannon did not appear to buy the prosecutions argument that the 2 cases are different .

BREAKING: Judge Aileen Cannon Considers Dismissing Trump's Classified Documents Case Amidst Selective Prosecution Concerns - Texas Border Business (https://texasborderbusiness.com/breaking-judge-aileen-cannon-considers-dismissing-trumps-classified-documents-case-amidst-selective-prosecution-concerns/)

(hard to find this in the compliant press . They focus more on her refusal to accept Trump's immunity claim)

Cannon wants Trump to be able to attend the proceedings . So as long as the hush money show trial is happening ; she will not schedule this case. Again ; this will likely push any trial until after the election.

During a hearing in a Florida court, the judge extensively questioned the team led by Jack Smith, the prosecutor handling the case, on why Donald Trump was the only former president or vice president in the United States to be charged under the Espionage Act for retaining or taking classified documents. This inquiry came in the wake of revelations involving 32 counts against Trump, marking a significant challenge to the prosecution’s efforts to hold him accountable for alleged mishandling of sensitive information.It is the million dollar question.


former Special Counsel Robert Hur’s confirmation that President Joe Biden had also breached laws related to the retention of classified documents. Hur highlighted that Biden had willfully retained classified materials and shared them with a ghostwriter for a book project, from which he reportedly earned at least $8 million. These revelations have fueled debates over the consistency of legal standards applied to high-ranking officials, with Trump’s legal team arguing that their client is being unfairly targeted.So Biden not only retained classified docs, but shared them with a writer whose obvious intent was to publish them in book form, and yet he was not prosecuted? Golly. I wonder why not?

The un-redaction of docs ordered by Judge Cannon could destroy Smith's doc case against Trump.

They prove that despite Quid's denials ;the WH ;DOJ ,and the Archives coordinated closely in a get Trump effort. DOJ has made claims that they only got involved after the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA ....at the time headed by emperor appointed David Ferriero ) sent in criminal referrals in February 2022 . But the docs show close collaboration in 2021 .

Deputy White House Counsel Jonathan Su regularly communicated with Archive officials in that time.
Quid told '60 Minutes' that the WH was not involved .

"I have not asked for the specifics of those documents because I don't want to get myself in the middle of whether or not the Justice Department should move or not move on certain actions they can take," Biden said. "I agreed I would not tell them what to do and not, in fact, engage in telling them how to prosecute or not."

Biden says Trump handling of documents 'totally irresponsible' | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-trump-handling-documents-totally-irresponsible-2022-09-19/)

Trump's defense team compiled the records but they had been heavily redacted . Smith fought to keep them that way. Now we know why.

SCOTUS said today that 1512(c)(2) was not an appropriate felony charge against the Jan 6 rioters because it only applies to evidence tampering . Many of the rioter will have the most serious charges against them reversed . Trump is also charged with violating the statute in his DC Jan 6 case.

For one person the decision comes too late. Matthew Lawrence Perna died on February 25, 2022 from suicide.

He entered the Capitol on Jan 6 through a door that had been opened .He hung out there for 5-10 minutes taking pictures within a roped in area.
Pictures of him at the Capitol ended up on his Fakebook page. The Feds asked for the public’s help to identify rioters . A person familiar with Perna recognized him and flagged him to police.

When notified that the police were looking for him he surrendered to them . He plead guilty to all their charges.
Then he found out that the Feds were looking to tack on additional charges .He became despondent. .

His obit said
“The constant delays in hearings, and postponements dragged out for over a year. Because of this, Matt’s heart broke and his spirit died,”

Jan. 6 Capitol rioter dies by suicide because of 'broken heart' over case (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2022/03/01/jan-6-capitol-rioter-dies-by-suicide-because-of-broken-heart-over-case/)



“When Matthew was unexpectedly charged with the felony of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding—after initially facing only misdemeanors—his world collapsed. The weight of a potential lengthy prison sentence bore down on him, filling his days with insurmountable worry and anxiety. At that time, there was no glimmer of hope that this severe charge would be dropped.
Supreme Court Overturns DOJ's Use of Key J6 Felony Court (declassified.live) (https://www.declassified.live/p/supreme-court-overturns-dojs-use)

People should be held responsible for this madness.

Just heard driving home from my hike that SCOTUS ruled Presidents have ABSOLUTE immunity for OFFICIAL ACTS . This should delay or put a fork in the DC trials and the doc case . I need to read the opinion to see if they clarify what is considered an 'official act '. I believe that none of these cases will be resolved before the election

Surely Official Acts are those conducted while in the elected role\office and not after the fact.
So rules out some, but not all of the current actions...
Either way typical murky SCOTUS ruling.

Correct they punted

Trump was in office until January 20 2021 . The events of Jan 6 happened when he was in office.

I just read the decision .


It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.

23-939_e2pg.pdf (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)

What SCOTUS said was a President has absolute immunity when doing core acts and presumptive immunity when doing official acts . SCOTUS did not decide the case against Trump. They went point by point in the indictment against him and instructed the lower courts to evaluate the extent of his immunity based on their guidelines.

What will happen now is that the courts that denied his appeals before will evaluate and deny his appeals again . This just brought Trump and SCOTUS time. Eventually SCOTUS will have to decide the merit of each indictment .

Trump wins because the delay will push the cases against him beyond the election. If he wins he fires the prosecutor and has an Attorney General who dismisses the cases .

I honestly don't know when official acts begin and acts by a President are subject to criminal prosecution . It is a very murky slippery slope.
As an example ;the emperor ordering the killing of American citizen; Anwar al-Awlaki,( a cleric born in New Mexico making him a birthright American ;but an al Qaeda leader in the Arabian peninsula ) with a drone .

The emperor wacked an enemy of the country . But al-Awlaki was not given due process entitled to every American citizen. Legal scholars have been debating whether the emperor was acting within his powers or was he guilty of murder ?

He was not given his day in court as was his co-conspirator Rajib Karim given in the Brit courts.
So did the emperor exceed his powers as his official duty as Commander in Chief of the Armed forces ? What is clear was that it was far easier to drone his a$$ than to go though the ponderous judicial process.

Let the government prove that Trump was NOT acting in his official capacity . That shouldn't be hard right ?

As a sidebar and perhaps more interesting is that Justice Clarance Thomas in a separate concurring opinion opened up the possibility that prosecutor Jack Smith's appointment violated the Constitution.


"Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law,"


By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President – he cannot create offices at his pleasure,"

Trump has made that contention especially in the Florida document case.

Roberts in his opinion gave instructions to the lower courts they could NOT consider the President's motives but only to decide if his acts were official Presidential acts .

For the record Trump's motives are clear . He thought he was defrauded . He tried to get AG Barr to investigate election fraud and Barr refused.
He tried to get states officials to investigate fraud and change electoral votes he thought were fraudulent . He tried to convince VP Pence that his duty was more than just a ceremonial rubber stamp of fraudulent election results ;that Pence should delay until the concerns were addressed. Finally he called on his supporters to go to Capitol Hill to protest the certification. That turned violent.

Trump contends that all his acts were official acts .

Meanwhile Justice Sotomayor's dissent is a meltdown. She got right to the Dem talking point . Again ;all the court did was refer the case back to the lower courts. She makes it sound that they crowned a king. She uses the tired trope you hear so often from the Dems " No man is above the law" . ( “a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”)This they will not use when Clueless Joe unilaterally decides that student loans are forgiven or that the borders are now open.

I can't emphasis how hysterical and unhinged Justice Sotomayor's dissent sounds.

She seriously claims that a President can now order the Navy Seals to assassinate a political rival with immunity . She says a President can organize a coup to retain power.


She says that a President can take a bribe for a pardon .

She is wrong although past Presidents have not been held accountable for that .

Hasidic Clemency Case Entangles Hillary Clinton - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com) (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-feb-24-mn-29756-story.html)

Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich continues to pay big (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2016/01/17/after-pardoning-criminal-marc-rich-clintons-made-millions-off-friends/)


The issue was separation of powers . SCOTUS confined their opinion to that issue. The charges against Trump have not gone away. The prosecution can proceed . Had the DOJ taken that into account then there would not have been this delay. But their goal is not justice under the law. It is "get Trump" .

Bold prediction. Now that it looks like other cases will be delayed until after the election ; Judge Merchan in NY will sentence Trump to jail July 11 . 4 days before the Repub convention.

Trump's lawyers have petitioned the Judge to set aside the verdict based on the SCOTUS ruling. That will be denied. The case was local and personal not subject to Presidential immunity.

The Dems want him in jail by any means necessary. Riker's Island is perfect for their purposes where a random shiv can always be found or an unexplained suicide.

Here is Clueless Joe's remarks about the SCOTUS immunity ruling.

“Today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what the president can do,” “The power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States. The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone.”

President Biden Delivers Remarks on the Supreme Court's Immunity Ruling (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL1GXCOfWI8&t=13s)

And here is his reaction to SCOTUS ruling on his student loan forgiveness .

Joe Biden on X: "I promised to ease student debt for millions of folks. The Supreme Court blocked me, but it didn’t stop me. I found another way to help more than 3.7 million people—teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters—with over $130 billion in relief." / X (https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1752715883829477670?lang=en)

"I promised to ease student debt for millions of folks. The Supreme Court blocked me, but it didn’t stop me. I found another way to help more than 3.7 million people—teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters—with over $130 billion in relief." Translation. "I promised to force millions of other Americans to fork over money we could use to pay off these student loans that were oftentimes foolishly entered into. But not to worry! As with most new federal spending initiatives, no taxes will be raised. We'll just borrow it, thus postponing the pain until years down the road. We're clever little buzzards, aren't we? And now, of course, we expect those who benefit from this boondoggle to vote democrat."

Here is how Robert's addressed Sotomayor's concerns in her dissent


The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. … Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors.

BAM !!!!

wow in a surprise move Bragg has authorized a letter to Judge Merchan indicating he does not oppose a delay in sentencing to consider the SCOTUS immunity decision's impact on the case.

Honestly I don't think it impacts the case at all because none of it was related to Trump's official duties as President .

Judge Merchan delayed Trump sentencing until Sept 18 . I still contend they will put him in jail before the election.

Not surprising ;the DOJ is not happy that convictions and admissions of guilt involving the Jan 6 riot at the Capitol will likely have to be reversed or at least revisited .

The SCOTUS Fisher decision said that Sec 1512(c)(2) is about document tampering ;not disrupting a Congressional proceeding.

You can count on the fact that Jack Smith won't let it rest . His record with SCOTUS is one of failure ( see when SCOTUS unanimously smacked down his conviction of former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell
Supreme Court Throws Out Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's Conviction : The Two-Way : NPR (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/27/483711311/supreme-court-throws-out-former-virginia-governor-bob-mcdonnells-conviction)
.)
Jack Smith tends to overreach .

Look for him to try to rewrite the convictions and indictments in a language that is more acceptable to SCOTUS interpretation of the law ;probably something like they targeted the documents that the Senate was using or some other nonsense like the "ballot " being a document.

Then the charade of DC judges rubber stamping and DC juries convicting the defendants will proceed .