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

[keith]

In my view we are where we are as a result of the cowardice, incompetence and sloth of one man.

Merrick Garland.

He prosecuted the privates and let the officers get away. He finally moved after the January 6 Committee did most of his work for him. And then he appointed a Special Counsel. Why didn't he appoint a Special Counsel on day one?

Yeah, maybe.

But if not for 'one man' (the one that just announced his pending retirement) Merrick Garland would be sitting on the Supreme Court Bench, not in the Attorney General's office. (or is that Attorney's General office - I can never remember).

[Maybenaut]

In my view we are where we are as a result of the cowardice, incompetence and sloth of one man.

Merrick Garland.

He prosecuted the privates and let the officers get away. He finally moved after the January 6 Committee did most of his work for him. And then he appointed a Special Counsel. Why didn't he appoint a Special Counsel on day one?

Yeah, maybe.

But if not for 'one man' (the one that just announced his pending retirement) Merrick Garland would be sitting on the Supreme Court Bench, not in the Attorney General's office. (or is that Attorney's General office - I can never remember).

You were right the first time. Attorneys General is plural.

[sterngard friegen]

In my view we are where we are as a result of the cowardice, incompetence and sloth of one man.

Merrick Garland.

He prosecuted the privates and let the officers get away. He finally moved after the January 6 Committee did most of his work for him. And then he appointed a Special Counsel. Why didn't he appoint a Special Counsel on day one?

Yeah, maybe.

But if not for 'one man' (the one that just announced his pending retirement) Merrick Garland would be sitting on the Supreme Court Bench, not in the Attorney General's office. (or is that Attorney's General office - I can never remember).

I can only imagine how pusillanimous he would have been as a Supreme Court Justice.

(And it's the Attorney General's office. There is only one at a time.)

[Dr. Ken]

In my view we are where we are as a result of the cowardice, incompetence and sloth of one man.

Merrick Garland.

He prosecuted the privates and let the officers get away. He finally moved after the January 6 Committee did most of his work for him. And then he appointed a Special Counsel. Why didn't he appoint a Special Counsel on day one?

Yeah, maybe.

But if not for 'one man' (the one that just announced his pending retirement) Merrick Garland would be sitting on the Supreme Court Bench, not in the Attorney General's office. (or is that Attorney's General office - I can never remember).

You were right the first time. Attorneys General is plural.

I learned this on The West Wing

[RVInit]

In my view we are where we are as a result of the cowardice, incompetence and sloth of one man.

Merrick Garland.

He prosecuted the privates and let the officers get away. He finally moved after the January 6 Committee did most of his work for him. And then he appointed a Special Counsel. Why didn't he appoint a Special Counsel on day one?

I agree 100%. And what is worse, if he hadn't been pushed to the limit by Trump refusing to return classified documents there would never have been a Special Counsel at all. IMO.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Attorney General -singular The Attorney General filed a brief
Attorneys General -plural Four Attorneys General filed a joint brief
Attorney General's -singular possessive The Attorney General's brief
Attorneys General's -plural possessive The Attorneys General's joint brief

[RTH10260]

MTN Michael Popok comments on the SCOTUS certioriari decision.

skipped a rather lenghty intro of the history in the appelate court, and mentions what the justices will not review, leading up to the only question they will consider.

[keith]

Attorney General -singular The Attorney General filed a brief
Attorneys General -plural Four Attorneys General filed a joint brief
Attorney General's -singular possessive The Attorney General's brief
Attorneys General's -plural possessive The Attorneys General's joint brief

Yeahbt, can't the attorney have a general office (as opposed ro say, a private office)?

Thus, the Attorney's General office.

[SuzieC]

In my view we are where we are as a result of the cowardice, incompetence and sloth of one man.

Merrick Garland.

He prosecuted the privates and let the officers get away. He finally moved after the January 6 Committee did most of his work for him. And then he appointed a Special Counsel. Why didn't he appoint a Special Counsel on day one?

I agree 100%. And what is worse, if he hadn't been pushed to the limit by Trump refusing to return classified documents there would never have been a Special Counsel at all. IMO.

I disagree 100%. We are where we are due to the incompetent, fascist, screaming idiocy of one man. He tried to overthrow the government, and instigated his MAGA hordes to do it. Our government has tried mightily to prosecute, try, and convict those MAGA orcs. Garland's DOJ has convicted many and thrown them in to prison. Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, in prison for 20 years. Thanks to Biden's DOJ.

[MN-Skeptic]

Trump’s brief to the Supreme Court - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tioner.pdf

[RTH10260]

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether and if so to what extent does a former
President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal
prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts
during his tenure in office.

I guess we still disagree that what candidate DJT did was not an official act to preserve election integrity.

[Sam the Centipede]

I like the opening sentence of the introduction:

From 1789 to 2023, no former, or current,
President faced criminal charges for his official acts—
for good reason.

Yes, "for good reason"—because they were not career criminals!

The Orange Shitgibbon's argument seems to be "how could any reasonable person expect the president to do his job without breaking many laws day after day, week after week, year after year?"

[AndyinPA]

If tfg gets immunity, then Biden has it. He's got ten months to take advantage of it.

[jemcanada2]

If tfg gets immunity, then Biden has it. He's got ten months to take advantage of it.

Or longer if he has immunity to decide who wins the election

[bob]

Surprise! Birthers McInerney (three stars) and Vallely (two stars) didn't make the cut!

Today is the deadline for filing before argument, and there were plenty of amici briefs.

[Ben-Prime]

So many people have filed these briefs that we might as well start calling him...

...Don Amici....

I'll see myself out.

[bob]

"For completeness," the prosecutor filed his opening brief:

Edit: "For clarity."

[MN-Skeptic]

Zachary Cohen
@ZcohenCNN

News: Special counsel Jack Smith urged SCOTUS on Monday to reject Donald Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity and to deny the former president any opportunity to delay a trial on charges that he attempted to subvert the results of 2020 election.

Filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... filing.pdf

The Supreme Court will hear arguments April 25, and a decision is expected by July.

Trump’s written reply to Smith is due next week.

[chancery]

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
JUST IN: Jack Smith files his opening brief at the Supreme Court re: presidential immunity.

And I've seen other law reporter tweets referring to the government's "opening brief."

Not a big deal, and in fact this is pettifoggery, but

A petitioner, here Trump, gets an opening brief and a reply. A respondent, here the government, gets a single brief, unless there's something unusual in the briefing order, which there is not.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... 3_febh.pdf

[RTH10260]

https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/17 ... 9255084333

Zachary Cohen@ZcohenCNN

News: Special counsel Jack Smith urged SCOTUS on Monday to reject Donald Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity and to deny the former president any opportunity to delay a trial on charges that he attempted to subvert the results of 2020 election.

Filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... filing.pdf

The Supreme Court will hear arguments April 25, and a decision is expected by July.

Trump’s written reply to Smith is due next week.

Question: the elections are getting near by that point in time. Will it be in favour of Teh Donald that a trial will be happening in summer?

[bob]

Question: the elections are getting near by that point in time. Will it be in favour of Teh Donald that a trial will be happening in summer?

Even if SCOTUS rules at the end of June, some down time will still be needed for a trial to ramp up.

And there undoubtedly be further attempts to delay.

My WAG is a trial will help the defendant's political winds. A conviction, less so.

A quick trial and conviction, IMO, would help the Republican party ... to pick another candidate.

A post-convention conviction would be chaos (and not in a good way).

[RTH10260]

as seen by The Guardian

Special counsel urges supreme court to reject Trump immunity bid in election trial
Trump appealed lower court’s denial of his request to be shielded from case charging him with attempting to overturn 2020 election

Reuters
Tue 9 Apr 2024 03.40 CEST

The special counsel pursuing federal criminal charges against Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss filed a US supreme court brief on Monday urging the justices to reject the former president’s bid for immunity from prosecution on the principle that “no person is above the law”.

The case is due to be argued before the justices on 25 April. Trump has appealed a lower court’s rejection of his request to be shielded from the criminal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith because he was serving as president when he took the actions at the center of the case.

In his last filing before the arguments, Smith told the justices that Trump’s actions that led to the charges, if he is convicted, would represent “an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government”.

“The effective functioning of the presidency does not require that a former president be immune from accountability for these alleged violations of federal criminal law,” Smith wrote. “To the contrary, a bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law including the president.“

Trump, the first former president to be criminally prosecuted, has pleaded not guilty in this case and the three other criminal cases he faces, seeking to paint them as politically motivated.

He has argued that a former president has “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts,” and warned that without such immunity, “the threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial presidential decisions”.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... tion-trial

[Dave from down under]

“… influence the most sensitive and controversial presidential decisions”

Such as

“To coup or not to coup, that is the question “

[Rolodex]

I don't watch a lot of teevee news shows, but I caught a bit of Psaki's show last night and this stopped me in my tracks. The amicus briefs are coming into SCOTUS re turnip's "immunity," and a group of former military leaders have filed one. The principal signer was interviewed and his statement is very powerful (and I'm glad Psaki bucked the trend of hosts interrupting guests all the dang time) and lays the case out clearly and unambiguously. Ifill comments as well, with her smart insights. Nine minutes but WELL worth the watch.

[noblepa]

Question: the elections are getting near by that point in time. Will it be in favour of Teh Donald that a trial will be happening in summer?

Even if SCOTUS rules at the end of June, some down time will still be needed for a trial to ramp up.

And there undoubtedly be further attempts to delay.

My WAG is a trial will help the defendant's political winds. A conviction, less so.

A quick trial and conviction, IMO, would help the Republican party ... to pick another candidate.

A post-convention conviction would be chaos (and not in a good way).

I do not share your optimism that the party of Trump (they are no longer the Republican party, IMHO) will remove him from the ticket in the event of a conviction. He will, of course, scream that it is a travesty of justice and a witch hunt. He will parade it as a badge of honor to his followers.