Posted on 07/31/2023 7:51:38 PM PDT by Lakeside Granny
Rubin Young
@RubinCYoung
Food for thoughts
The Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over cases involving the legal foundations of our national government, including those involving the Presidency and/or former President of the United States, and should thus exercise its original jurisdiction under Article III with respect to the illegal and unconstitutional mistreatment of President Donald J. Trump.
This country is under attack.
According to our Constitution, whether a case involves the Presidency or the Executive, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.
It is improper to hold a trial in a lower or subordinate body for a constitutional officer who once functioned as President and Commander in Chief.
The Court’s Jurisdiction
Article III, Section II, of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court.
The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law.
Some examples include cases to which the United States is a party, cases involving Treaties, and cases involving ships on the high seas and navigable waterways (admiralty cases).
Judicial Review
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, which is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter.
Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.
Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment’s passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well.
Therefore, the United State Supreme Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.
President Trump has absolute immunity for actions or decisions made while in office, according to the Constitution. He was relieved of his duties on January 20, 2021, and not on January 6, 2021.
Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Given this new information, President Trump, who was never found guilty by the Senate during his unconstitutional impeachment trial for the aforementioned alleged crimes, should not be tried again as a form of double jeopardy by a state court or a federal special prosecutor for decisions or actions occurring while serving as President prior to the alleged J6 coup d’état.
There was no January 6, 2021.
On that day, there was no actual revolt because the President, not Congress, was in charge of all federal governments.
An elected President must be successfully removed by
Page 1
Americans, not by foreigners, in order for there to be a true revolt or insurrection.
The People rest.
Page 2
7:33 PM · Aug 1, 2023
·
https://twitter.com/RubinCYoung/status/1686565832682303488
Lysie keeping bakers hours, who else gets up that early? Thanks for the grub young lady.
Meta Begins Removing Canadians’ Access To All News On Facebook, Instagram
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4172257/posts
Good morning, lysie!
Thanks for the omelet and a Diet Pepsi to wash it all down.
Amen
Thank you for posting the APV.
The woke leftist media would have to pay ME to read most of their news and they don’t do that.
Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
One thing that will prevent the case from getting anywhere near a trial before Nov. 2024 is the volume of discovery that the Smith SCO is going to be obligated to produce. We are talking about millions of pages.
AND, imagine what it would have been if they had actually pursued a “sedition” claim and tried to link Trump to the events of Jan. 6.
Tens of millions of pages would have been involved.
As it is, this is the epitome of a “complex case” under the statute, and Trump’s attorneys are going to walk in and say they need at least 12 months to review the discovery before they can even begin to talk about a motions schedule and a trial date.
8:44 PM · Aug 1, 2023
DocWashburn
@DocWashburn
·
8h
Points well taken. Will Judge Chutkun deal fairly with Trump’s attorneys?
Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
It’s not a subject where she has a lot of room to deny them what they say they need without looking unreasonable.
That creates a record that will follow her and be a basis for an “abuse of discretion” claim that could get her removed from the case.
I suspect that this is LAST THING she wants to have happen.
9:08 PM · Aug 1, 2023
·
Good morning, lysie!
Eggsactly what we need his morning!
Thank you!
From FL lawyer Jeff Childers’ daily Coffee and Covid email this morning—a review of the Trump indictment:
____________________________________________________________
🔥” The Hill ran a tiresome story yesterday headlined, “Trump indicted on Jan. 6 charges.” On Tuesday — the day after Devon Archer testified about Joe Biden’s shady connections to a bunch of sketchy oligarchs — special counsel Jack Smith issued a horrible 45-page indictment tacking yet another criminal case onto President Trump’s mounting legal docket.
This newest indictment includes four counts, for mainly two reasons: that President Trump “conspired to defraud the United States,” and that he “conspired to interfere with the certification of the election.” Here’s how the Hill explained it:
“Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won,” the indictment states.
“These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false,” it continues. “But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.”
The Hill, quoting bug-eyed reptilian Congressman Adam Schiff, all but admitted that the so-called House January 6th Committee was always intended to produce this singular result: charging Trump with J6-related crimes. The odious Schiff couldn’t wait to take the credit:
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Tuesday credited the investigation, saying the indictment was “based in large part on evidence we uncovered through our work.”
Although the indictment didn’t explicitly name them or indict them (yet), it claimed Trump worked with six co-conspirators: “The Defendant enlisted co-conspirators to assist him in his criminal efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election and retain power.” Based on comments from the indictment, people are guessing the co-conspirators include five of Trump’s attorneys: Rudi Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark, Kenneth Cheseboro, and John Eastman, plus an unidentified political consultant.
In a long series of poorly-considered Trump cases, this is one of the dumbest yet.
First, nearly all the conduct described in the four counts is speech, and not just speech, but political speech. Political speech is the most protected kind of speech under the Constitution’s First Amendment. That probably won’t stop the Obama-appointed judge from letting the case survive an inevitable motion to dismiss, but my initial take is the counts can’t survive without rewriting the Constitution.
The situation is slightly more complicated because the DOJ framed the counts as “fraud,” which is a type of speech that isn’t protectable, but that raises its own problems. Even if Trump did lie, which is debatable, lying isn’t illegal, not without something more, like being under oath, or harming someone who relied on the lie.
So the DOJ must first prove Trump lied, and then it must marry the lies to something else that can except them from First Amendment protection.
Which brings us to the DOJ’s next big problem, which is an interesting twist. A central material issue in this shiny new indictment is the truth or falsity of whether significant 2020 election fraud occurred or not. After all, the DOJ is claiming that Trump “lied” about election fraud, thereby — ironically — committing a fraud of his own.
In other words, they’re saying Trump committed fraud by alleging fraud. You can’t make this stuff up.
Now cast your mind back two years. Remember that none of Trump’s 2020 lawsuits ever got a chance to present evidence, since they were all dismissed on technical or procedural grounds. None of them got to take discovery, either.
But this time, now that he and his lawyers are defendants in a criminal case, President Trump can not only put on evidence of election fraud, but he must. And before that, he will have the right to conduct discovery under the demanding federal rules. And they’re not going to like it.
And, while I’m sure the giddy prosecutors are currently planning to just sit back and make Trump’s lawyers prove there was election fraud, the prosecutors will soon confront another unpleasant surprise related to what they must prove.
Right now, the prosecutors think proving their case will be easy and they won’t have to do much. But, as Trump’s lawyers begin to assemble evidence of election fraud — much of which was already pulled together in 2020 (but never considered by a court) — the DOJ prosecutors will start to realize at some point that they can’t just remain silent. They don’t see it yet, but they will eventually have to prove the negative; they will have to prove that election fraud didn’t happen.
They can’t just rely on “everybody knows” there wasn’t voter fraud. They can’t just wave their hands at the dismissed 2020 cases. They’ll almost certainly have to prove the absence of fraud.
And that, they cannot prove. Not only because proving a negative is incredibly difficult, but because it’s already very clear there was significant fraud, as demonstrated by sources like 2,000 mules. Plus, the more they look into whether fraud happened, the more it will hurt the government case.
Finally, of course, bringing this case two and a half years after January 6th during the middle of a presidential election campaign — against a candidate — is a total Banana Republic move. I’m expecting to see Joe Biden pop up wearing a medal-covered jacket covered any day now.”
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
1h
THANK YOU TO EVERYONE!!! I HAVE NEVER HAD SO MUCH SUPPORT ON ANYTHING BEFORE. THIS UNPRECEDENTED INDICTMENT OF A FORMER (HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL!) PRESIDENT, & THE LEADING CANDIDATE, BY FAR, IN BOTH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE 2024 GENERAL ELECTION, HAS AWOKEN THE WORLD TO THE CORRUPTION, SCANDAL, & FAILURE THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS. AMERICA IS A NATION IN DECLINE, BUT WE WILL MAKE IT GREAT AGAIN, GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE. I LOVE YOU ALL!!!
Jack Poso
@JackPosobiec
·
24m
And just like that no one is talking about the US losing its AAA debt rating
Bidenomics!
DineshDSouza
@DineshDSouza
·
13h
The Democrats stole the 2020 election. This indictment is an attempt to protect the thieves and legitimize the heist. It is also an attempt to set up the theft of the 2024 election, and scare people so they don’t contest it or protest against election fraud. Democracy in peril!
@DonaldJTrumpJr
· 13h
Anyone else noticing a pattern here? The corrupt beurocrats of the Biden regime charge Trump literally the day after every single disastrous Biden crime family story. Rather than looking into the millions sent to the Biden’s their kids & their grandkids from virtually all of our enemies they go after their political enemies knowing that their lackeys in the media will use their bogus charges to cover for Biden, the most corrupt president in the history of our nation. We are a banana republic!
John Hayward
@Doc_0
We’ve been subjected to a lot of outrageous political double standards, but the one that says Democrats can deny - and even actively undermine - elections all they want, but Republicans go to jail for doing the same, might just be the one that tears the Republic apart.
8:29 AM · Aug 2, 2023
Something needs to happen up here, and fast.
This WEF tyrant needs to go.
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.
