LOL!
Inevitable headline: "After the late Ruth Ginsburg's fashionable alterations to traditional jurist's robes, progressive members propose pushing the boundries of tradition even further."
Posted on 12/01/2023 7:35:27 PM PST by 11th_VA
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will soon consider whether to hear appeals brought by people charged with offenses relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol in cases that could have a major impact on the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
The justices are weighing three different appeals brought by defendants Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang and Garret Miller...
The three men are seeking to dismiss a charge accusing them of obstructing an official proceeding, namely the certification by Congress of President Joe Biden’s election victory, which was disrupted by a mob of Trump supporters.
Trump has been charged with the same offense, as well as others, in his federal election interference case. As a result, whether the court takes up the appeals or rejects them could affect his case.
If the court rejects the appeals, a lower court ruling that allowed the government to pursue the charges against the defendants would remain in place.
But if the justices take up the cases, it would lead to a monthslong delay while they hear oral arguments and issue a ruling sometime during the court’s current nine-month term, which ends in June. At least four votes are needed for the nine-justice court to hear a case.
The last time the Supreme Court considered an appeal related to Jan. 6, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas did not participate. That case involved John Eastman, who advised Trump on Jan. 6 …
Trump’s lawyers could use the Supreme Court's involvement as one opportunity to delay his election interference trial, which is scheduled to start in March.
Should the court hear the cases, Trump “could credibly ask to delay his trial until the case is resolved,” said former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason, who teaches at George Washington University Law School…
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Courts are turning into code word for agendas another democrat domino chaos event.
Not one word about the substance of the appeal.
“I’m not questioning your post, I just want to be able to share that evidence.”
I understand and I have looked since and can’t find a thing about it. They were hiding it right away. But Cspan and CNN were streaming it live as it happened. And you can bet these videos they are NOT sharing has this event recorded.
I explained this back right after it happened. But we happened to be in a unique situation here which allowed us to watch it live on network closed feed meant only for internal use. We have old school big dish, and all the networks broadcast closed feeds to satellites meant for distribution to their affiliates across the country. It is live, unedited, and raw. So my wife and I were able to watch this all happen live on the CNN feed.
I’m still kicking myself hard for not recording it...
This question was answered long ago.
LOL!
Inevitable headline: "After the late Ruth Ginsburg's fashionable alterations to traditional jurist's robes, progressive members propose pushing the boundries of tradition even further."
Was that “shout” or “shot”?
Shot.
Was “Alexandra” Filming.... you know... her Daughter, The “documentary Maker”?
GAWD!
Sotomeyer or her office.
The leak.
This was reported a while ago
No, it was live feed from the proceedings on the house floor. Two reps had already challenged and had confirmed their sponsors from the Senate. The third, Paul Gosar was at the lectern making his speech when the proceedings were interrupted before he could finish. Then there was confusion among all the members and they were pointed out a door to leave the floor. Surprisingly, it was calm and relaxed as they gathered up and left the room. As if they were not sure exactly what was happening. There was no panic at all.
In 18 U.S. Code Chapter 102 - RIOTS, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions, is this:
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.President Trump spoke of his belief that he won the election, and then asked the attendees to peacefully walk to the Capitol to show the lawmakers their support for President Trump. That meets the exception to the "to incite a riot" definition.
-PJ
I think the problem is these appeals are going to be coming from the DC courts and Roberts is the one who gets to decide what cases they take from the DC courts. So he can just deny them without consulting anyone else.
Yes, the DC court appeals are the real problem. It’s no secret Roberts dislikes Trump and the DC cases are total rigg jobs
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.