There is not one government department or agency that is NOT CORRUPT now!!
To say nothing of the political and psychological impact such a game changing ruling will have. Trump will be vindicated. The US v Fischer will blow up the rest of Jack Smith’s J6 case.
Have you forgotten who is Chief Justice?
SCOTUS will dodge this as long as they can
Nothing will happen until after sentencing by that scum judge. But things will start moving quickly afterwards IMHO.
I rarely give Demscum advice, but it’s a trap you idiots. (Not that they will listen.)
I thought President Trump handed over the day-to-day operations of The Trump Organization to Don Jr. and Eric after taking office. If these legal expenses were booked in 2017, how is President Trump responsible for them?
Am I missing something?
I guess I'm not clear about the timeline. Didn't the NDA with Clifford happen in October 2016? Unless the transactions were booked in the first 20 days of the year, what were the transactions that occurred in 2017 while President Trump's children were running the company?
-PJ
Roberts may be a problem, he may be subject to blackmail over irregularities in the adoption of his two children.
The Left WILL use that.
My concern is that vindication by immunity still implies bad conduct, whereas vindication by an overturned decision for trial misconduct by the court and the prosecutor is far better.
They could always argue that Trump acted feloniously if he is exonerated by immunity. It would never the effectively rebutted.
I do not have faith that the SC is going to save Trump. Trump has lost every step of the way, on every court case. There is no reason to believe the SC is going to just jump in and save the day.
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.
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....
Good catch. He made the entries for the recurring payment recorded as legal services from February 5, 2017 to October, 2017. He was inaugurated President January 2017 when immunity would attach as President. Clearly immunity applies to official acts while in office. These is dispute however whether immunity applies to previous acts committed prior to becoming President or offenses committed while President that were not official acts of the Presidency. I am in the minority in that I think, if they file for a writ of cert for emergency review on the basis of due process violations rather than immunity, they will take it and further that it would go 6 to 3 in Trump’s favor. They understand the underlying politics of the case and when push comes to shove. in these kinds of national cases, the political instincts come out and they right the politics of the thing. If it was a Dem SC, they would not take it.
Who knows? I’m no longer willing to pretend to know or predict how courts will rule or what they will include in their rulings. You can no longer depend on the written law or precedent so you may as well say it depends on how the wind is blowing on any given day.
That being said, the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that the Court will no longer accept complaints against Judge Cannon, the judge in the Florida documents case.
See the ruling here:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:7355bd2e-1e32-471a-b253-a28be45c972f
A ruling in the presidential immunity case before the Supreme Court could address not just the immediate controversy but also require expedited consideration and allow direct filings in the high court of appeals from criminal and civil cases involving current presidents and candidates for president. This would be a signal of the Court’s readiness to review the Trump case on an immediate basis.
If (WHEN!?) SCOTUS upends the left’s attacks on Trump the chorus of leftist demands for packing the court will be deafening. And the good news about the records case is that it’s being heard in Florida by what appears to be a FAIR judge.
The pre-trial appeals are already pending, though they would have to somehow be consolidated and moved to the head of the line to get to SCOTUS. Marc Levin says there’s something called “common law writ of certiorari” that can be invoked for cases like this and Bush v. Gore. That’s beyond my limited knowledge, but whatever it is, I wish his counsel G-d—speed in successfully invoking it.
Second time!
Yes Trump was elected in 2016 and trying to interfere in the election in 2017…according to this case