Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
keith wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:16 pmYou 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.
@lawofruby wrote: 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/
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
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.RTH10260 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 11:53 am 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
Yes, that's one of the cases that was combined for the appeal. Good find.Kendra wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 1:29 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 1:29 pm 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.
That was like a week ago?Foggy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 7:56 pmDo I have to merge threads or move posts? I iz confuze.Kendra wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 1:29 pm 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.
can't remember. I'll defer to the smarter Fogbozers.
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.......
I say take off and nuke Mar-a-fucking-Lago from orbit.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:31 pm Well, on the plus side, if SCOTUS rules that the President is immune from laws, Biden can just have tfg executed. Right?
Hell yeah!p0rtia wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:37 pmI say take off and nuke Mar-a-fucking-Lago from orbit.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:31 pm Well, on the plus side, if SCOTUS rules that the President is immune from laws, Biden can just have tfg executed. Right?
It's the only way.