INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith

[keith]

To your quote line....


"BRIAN DON'T!!!!!"

You mean my signature line? I dunno what Brian has todo with it.

Thats in response to the Fogsters sigline which is a reference to... (prepare for earworm)

[keith]

To your quote line....


"BRIAN DON'T!!!!!"

You mean my signature line? I dunno what Brian has todo with it.

Thats in response to the Fogsters sigline which is a reference to... (prepare for earworm)

Eta i alsodunno how that got out of seq but i don't have the patience to fix it now.

[much ado]

One of my favorites! My kids already knew about it long before "Brian, DON'T". They thought their dad was nuts.

[raison de arizona]

Sorry that your criming is interfering with your politicing, I guess?
https://x.com/lawofruby/status/1758290650993484003?s=20

NEW: Trump has replied to Jack Smith’s opposition to Trump’s stay motion. But his first argument is not that he meets any of the factors that must be established for a continued stay; it’s to accuse Jack Smith of partisanship. 1/

In Trump’s portrayal, Smith’s sole reason to insist on a speedy trial would be to ruin Trump’s candidacy. What if the special counsel simply thinks Trump should be tried so that 1) voters have all the information; and 2) he cannot escape any trial at all through reelection? 2/

But it gets worse—and even further afield from the actual legal questions at issue in Trump’s stay application. Trump is newly arguing the seven months Chutkan allotted for pretrial proceedings — a clock that would probably start again once the stay is over — is not enough. 3/

And the why is galling. They trot out their usual “there’s too much discovery!” complaint—but then argue Trump’s case will be impacted by an upcoming Supreme Court case on the proper interpretation of one of the statutes used to charge him. 4/

Cert was granted in that case on Dec. 13, 2023. Yet this is the first time Trump has made that argument; more significantly, the petitioner in that 1/6 case, Joseph Fischer, was not even present at the Capitol until “well after Congress recessed.” 5/

And whether Fischer obstructed an official proceeding could be a vastly different question from the Trump case, in which his alleged obstruction did involve causing attempted evidence impairment. 6/

[RTH10260]

did we miss this or wrong thread?

Trump opts against Supreme Court appeal on civil immunity claim over Jan. 6 lawsuits
The decision not to seek high court review means cases brought against Trump over Jan. 6 can move forward in district court, although he can still mount an immunity defense.

Feb. 16, 2024, 3:39 PM CET / Updated Feb. 16, 2024, 8:11 PM CET
By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON — Lawsuits seeking to hold Donald Trump personally accountable for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol can move forward after the former president chose not to take his broad immunity claim to the Supreme Court.

Trump had a Thursday deadline to file a petition at the Supreme Court contesting an appeals court decision from December that rejected his immunity arguments, but he did not do so.

The appeals court made it clear that Trump could still claim immunity later in the proceedings in three cases brought by Capitol Police officers and members of Congress.

"President Trump will continue to fight for presidential immunity all across the spectrum," said Steven Cheung, a Trump spokesman.

The civil lawsuits against Trump are separate from the criminal case against him that also arose from Jan. 6. On Monday, Trump asked the justices to put that case on hold on immunity grounds.

Trump's lawyers argued that any actions he took on Jan. 6 fall under the scope of his responsibilities as president, thereby granting him immunity from civil liability. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected that argument, ruling that Trump was acting in his role as a political candidate running for office, not as president.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna138869

[Reality Check]

did we miss this or wrong thread?

Trump opts against Supreme Court appeal on civil immunity claim over Jan. 6 lawsuits
The decision not to seek high court review means cases brought against Trump over Jan. 6 can move forward in district court, although he can still mount an immunity defense.

Feb. 16, 2024, 3:39 PM CET / Updated Feb. 16, 2024, 8:11 PM CET
By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON — Lawsuits seeking to hold Donald Trump personally accountable for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol can move forward after the former president chose not to take his broad immunity claim to the Supreme Court.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna138869

I think the case being discussed in this article is actually Blassinggame et. al. v Trump. This is one of three civil cases filed against Trump for inspiring the insurrection on January 6th. He and another officer were with the Capitol Police on that day. I believe it was combined with two other cases filed by members of Congress at least as far as the appeal to the DC Circuit on the immunity claim. I don't know if there is a separate topic for these. There probably should be since these are now moving forward after the ruling against Trump. I looked and didn't see one.

[Kendra]

viewtopic.php?p=74457&hilit=swalwell#p74457

This was going for a while, we can add on updates and change thread title? Swalwell was on the teevee this weekend talking about this case.

[Reality Check]

viewtopic.php?p=74457&hilit=swalwell#p74457

This was going for a while, we can add on updates and change thread title? Swalwell was on the teevee this weekend talking about this case.

Yes, that's one of the cases that was combined for the appeal. Good find.

[Suranis]

Seems to be doing a lot of quietly sneaking away rather than "MANFULLY FIGHTING FORWARD NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES FOR YEWWWW!! Send money"

[Foggy]

viewtopic.php?p=74457&hilit=swalwell#p74457

This was going for a while, we can add on updates and change thread title? Swalwell was on the teevee this weekend talking about this case.

Do I have to merge threads or move posts? I iz confuze.

[Kendra]

viewtopic.php?p=74457&hilit=swalwell#p74457

This was going for a while, we can add on updates and change thread title? Swalwell was on the teevee this weekend talking about this case.

Do I have to merge threads or move posts? I iz confuze.

That was like a week ago? can't remember. I'll defer to the smarter Fogbozers.

[Foggy]

Off Topic

Yeah, I been drugged for a while due to the knee replacement. I'm better now (but it still stings).

[p0rtia]

Fuck.

What day is this of the autocracy? Day 1?

Pieces of utter shit.

Our democracy is dead.

[p0rtia]

SCOTUS will hear immunity. Orals April 22.

Fuck those five piles of shit from here to eternity.

[raison de arizona]

[AndyinPA]

[p0rtia]

Fuck. Judge Luttig thinks this is because some number of SCOTUS think fuckhead is immune. (Has to be in order to hear the case, as I understand it.)

Luttig looks like he just looked up.

[bob]

SCOTUS will hear immunity. Orals April 22.

"For completeness," SCOTUS' order (which is fairly boilerplate).

And argument will be heard the week of April 22.

[raison de arizona]

Well, on the plus side, if SCOTUS rules that the President is immune from laws, Biden can just have tfg executed. Right?

[Mr brolin]

Off Topic

Yeah, I been drugged for a while due to the knee replacement. I'm better now (but it still stings).

Feel ya pain Ole Rooster, 4 months since my total knee replacement, the fun part was the removal of 17 metal staples and 12 odd stitches.......

Now I occasionally clunk or clank when I go down the stairs

I did stop the pain killers as soon as I could, there is no more miserable experience than knowing ya gotta go, hobbling to the thunderbox, realising there is no comfortable way to put the leg then finding the pipes are cemented up from morphia based meds......

[p0rtia]

Well, on the plus side, if SCOTUS rules that the President is immune from laws, Biden can just have tfg executed. Right?

I say take off and nuke Mar-a-fucking-Lago from orbit.

It's the only way.

[Dave from down under]

Just being superficial and mean

Ivanka
Alien Queen

Compare and contrast

Which would you be more frightened of meeting?

[SuzieC]

I do not think that the SC will decide in favor of Trump on his claim of immunity. And I think that could be a positive result. If the SC rejects immunity before the election, the ruling will receive widespread publicity across the country and the takeaway will be that Trump is not immune for crimes committed while in office. Just being optimistic here.

[sad-cafe]

Well, on the plus side, if SCOTUS rules that the President is immune from laws, Biden can just have tfg executed. Right?

I say take off and nuke Mar-a-fucking-Lago from orbit.

It's the only way.

Hell yeah!

[Chilidog]

i don’t know how much weight SCOTUS gives to the federalist papers, but i seem yo recall that this type of situation was mentioned in them.