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 .
|
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.
That could easily backfire big-time.Quote:
issue pardons to himself.
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)
This is a variation of the theme Comey used for Evita .
No reasonable prosecutor would charge
No reasonable jury would convict
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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?Quote:
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.
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."
Attachment 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...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images...post-right.png
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 ???????????????????????????????????????
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.Quote:
Biden is thin and good looking.
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?
So 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.Quote:
Stacey isn't running for president
It would be helpful if you would make at least a feeble effort to stick to the truth.Quote:
hoping to become a dictator, a czar, an emperor.
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.Quote:
“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”
From yesterday's presser.
Hmmm.Quote:
Shortly after insisting that his memory was "fine," Biden proceeded to refer to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi as the "president of Mexico."
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/lau...2196fab2afd23e
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.
A chilling commentary on the mental disability of our current pres. Thankfully he is "thin and good looking", so I guess all is well?Quote:
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.
got me ask French President Mitterrand
Biden confuses French president Macron with ex-leader Mitterrand (nypost.com)
As opposed to the fat, ugly, foul-mouthed, lazy, piggish one, The Rascal U Might Punch.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Good grief. What a hate-filled rant. Doesn't this ever embarrass you? Truly, I'm embarrassed for you.Quote:
fat, ugly, foul-mouthed, lazy, piggish one, The Rascal U Might Punch.
That 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.Quote:
got me ask French President Mitterrand
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...ally-motivated
Kam the Sham has always been Clueless Joes insurance policy.
Bill Maher's take on things.
Quote:
"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)
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 ElectionQuote:
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. 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
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
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...-ahead-of-ipo/ .
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.Quote:
She contends that they only made a commitment to net zero by 2040 as a marketing trick to boost sales.
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?
She'll win in Illinois and probably NY. Plus other states.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:06 AM. |