Posted on 12/12/2023 6:48:14 AM PST by bitt
After years of assembling datapoints around the potential for the Supreme Court to be compromised, it was the discovery of Mary McCord’s husband Sheldon Snook deep in the office of Chief Justice John Roberts that finally sealed the deal for me personally. Yes, the Supreme Court is compromised.
Quick Context. Mary McCord was the architect of all Trump targeting efforts. The FISA on Carter Page, the weaponization of the DOJ-NSD, the installation of Michael Atkinson as Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), the companion to Sally Yates in the Flynn targeting, lead staff for the Schiff/Nadler impeachment effort, later appointment by FISA Presiding Judge Boasberg to be amicus to the FISC, in combination with Chief Justice John Roberts holding authority over the FISC, and the discovery that Sheldon Snook, McCord’s husband works in Robert’s office as “special assistant to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s counselor. The counselor’s office advises the chief justice not only on the management and budget of the Supreme Court but also on his interactions with the executive and legislative branches, along with numerous other public roles in which Roberts serves.” (link)
Mary McCord is the fulcrum point for all of the above issues. She connects all of the targeting operations. Mary McCord is the center of it, and John Robert’s office is compromised by the appointment of her husband Sheldon Snook. So, this story below does not surprise me.
Special Prosecutor Jack Smith jumped over the appeals court and asked the Supreme Court to decide on President Trump’s position of presidential immunity for his requests to secure the integrity of the 2020 election while in office. In the fastest turn around time in history, the Supreme Court [Robert’s office] said yes, they will hear the arguments.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121123zr_j4el.pdf
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
I am discussing the law and how it works. You are discussing the politics.
You are going to be very frustrated over the next few months.”
Like Medicine and Science, I believed the law was independent of politics. The frustrating reality is they no longer are independent. I doubt I will be shocked by the SCOTUS decision, especially after they refused an original jurisdiction case.
So it is your argument that had Trump been found guilty in his impeachment trial, then he could also have been tried in criminal court, but since he were found not guilty by the Senate, that he is immune from any civil penalty?
See my post 58.
That is what I was wondering. Now there is a push, politically, that Clarence Thomas needs to recuse himself when hearing this.
Whatever - looks like the fix is in. Trying to figure out what kind of reaction the government expects when they try to put Trump behind bars. Maybe exactly what they are looking for? What they have been trying to get for years?
Here comes Biden’s words - ‘You need F-16s to take on the federal government’ - will he find out?
Your ignorance of precedence is astounding. It isn’t what aboutism it is about establishing a precedent.
But the percedent hasn’t been set at the court. You cannot go into a court and say to the judge, “Well, he didn’t get caught…so I shouldn’t be charged.”
Your thinking is what you would expect at a grammar school.
So what have you seen the Supremes do that encourages you?
I have voted in every election since 1960 and have never voted for a democrat in my life so who do you suppose I will vote for? The problem is clear to anyone who cares to listen to facts the last election was stolen as sure as the sun will come up in the morning. I predict the Court will do nothing to protect the sanctity of our elections, apparently you think they will. I say don't hold you breath but always hold out hope because the Lord demands it.
Re: 63 - thanks for posting this.
This really comes down to AJs Alito and Thomas believing that the court was obligated to allow the bill of complaint to be filed because per Article III, the Court -shall- have jurisdiction in cases between two or more states, and failing to provide a venue for States to settle disputes is inequitable - see https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf
I would expect that from those Justices - a textualist approach in such a matter.
But people just simply gloss over the part where Alito and Thomas would not grant any other relief other than allowing Texas to file a bill of complaint. It was simply not the business of Texas to cry foul and ask the Court to withhold the certified count from other states.
Just a clown car of a legal strategy and proof that foot stomping is not a replacement for a coherent legal strategy and team PRIOR to an election.
“What the hell is the constitutional basis for the Federal government to be prosecuting crimes for drive-by shootings?”
Getting Congressman elected. I wish I was kidding.
I could see such laws being relevant in D.C. or perhaps other Federal districts / reservations, but that’s about it.
I disagreed with Alito and Thomas at the time -- not because I disagreed with their legal rationale for accepting the case, but because I would have expected a textualist to be very, very reluctant by nature to allow the Federal courts to do anything to get involved in a presidential election where the Constitution lays out very clear plenary powers of the states.
This whole idea of one state (Texas) to file a legal action against another state (Pennsylvania) over a presidential election where there wasn't even any legitimate formal opposition from Pennsylvania's state or Federal officials would set a very dangerous precedent for eliminating state oversight of their own elections.
John Kerry’s transition is coming along well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.