Posted on 06/02/2024 11:09:20 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
Speculation is running rampant about the need for a “hook” to get the Supremes to consider cert on the bogus Bragg conviction. Recall that the alleged “falsified” business records all supposedly occurred in 2017.
Last time I checked, Trump was president at the time. I’m not a lawyer, but if SCOTUS reaffirms broad presidential immunity (as I believe they will, definitely after the clown show in New York) on the basis of separation of powers, this will upend the J6 case, almost all of the documents case and the Fulton RICO case in its entirety. At a minimum, a broad immunity ruling could impact the Bragg case in interesting ways.
😊👍
I’ve read somewhere that Obama wrote a secret directive that ordered the DOD to scan all documents, and store them on one of their servers. If true, they already had the documents, implying that the MAL raid was indeed just another set up.
Could be many things but something about his child adoptions are the favored blackmail possibility.
If I under USSC procedure correctly, the actual decision is made within a couple of days of oral argument and the rest of the time until decision is handed down is spent writing the opinion, dissents, and all the legal writing each justice does with the clerks. Thus the immunity case was decided before this stuff happened. There was rumor that originally Obama care was struck down, but Robert’s waffled at the end and rescued it. I cannot find anything in USSC procedure that allows for a re-vote. I suppose logic would dictate that if there were a re-vote and change of decision based on the Bragg case it could be considered ex-parte and not working in arguments made at the time of the hearing. Seems to me further that the court does not adjudicate a case (the finders of fact are the jury alone) but rather work from the closed record and argue the law.
I don’t see how this case which occurred prior to the presidents inaguration fits into the scope of presidential immunity. But we as a nation seem to make the rules up currently as we go along.
According to Mark Levin, the only way that this case gets expedited is a new application using a common law writ, which though very unusual has a precedence in the history of the USSC. He sighted Bush v Gore as the controlling authority on equal protection grounds as in this case the court granted cert over a purely states issue as it impacted the general election. It fits in the rules but there was a little pretzel twist of the law from a pure tenth amendment standpoint.
Not missing anything except the illegality was not the check, the theory as far as I can follow any donkey logic was that the conspiracy is the crime and this happened during the candidacy of Trump in 2016 before he became president.
Regarding the case in New York City, I don't put much stock in what anybody claims to know about the facts because President Trump was denied his fifth and sixth amendment rights to a fair trial. Bragg was allowed to float unproven accusations as true and was allowed to argue crimes that were not appropriate to his jurisdiction. Trump was not allowed to put on his defense because he was not told the specific charges that would be brought to the jury and he was not allowed to put on witnesses favorable to him.
Therefore, to me, anything that we "know" from the trial is one-sided and prejudicial against Trump. That's why I think SCOTUS needs to hear the case directly in original jurisdiction.
-PJ
“We have two comments deleted BEFORE I could read them.”
Comments are deleted so they won’t be read, duhh.
Trump prevailed 9-0 when dimocrats attempted to keep him off the ballot in several jurisdictions.
Sorry. I’m bilingual. I speak English as a second language. Mostly I speak Facetious.
True, true. But the practical reality is the case will only be fully adjudicated (given the notoriously ponderous appellate process) beyond the elections.
As far as I can follow, the actual indicted charges were that the transactions (the checks) were "falsified." The predicate crime that Trump was NOT charged for was either a conspiracy, a tax fraud, or campaign spending fraud (take your pick).
I'm asking, if the actual indicted charges were the transactions, and Trump turned over operations of the company to his sons when the transactions were booked, how was Trump involved in the booking of the transactions?
-PJ
I think it’s the OP deleting his typo posts :)
“I’m guessing the circuit judge for NY is probably Kagan or Sotomayor in which case, they’ll deny it”
USSC judges are not circuit judges.
Point well taken. But wouldn’t “core” vs “personal” acts be left to evidentiary hearings, even in the Bragg case. Asking as an amateur.
For the record, I don’t think absolute immunity is in the cards, not with this SCOTUS as currently constituted.
Mike Pence and Justice Roberts are cut from the same cloth, Pence is obviously a traitor and we’ll see that Roberts is to. I surmise that Roberts will more than likely deny Trump to appeal his NY case to the SCOTUS. We’re next folks.
We can classify this as a constitutional Crisis....
True, that was for the primary ballots. I have to believe the rats aren’t finished with this angle of attack, especially now that they have their ‘felon’ to try it again.
Don’t lose hope. Fischer is on deck, and the immunity decision threatens to upend most of the rest of lawfare.
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.