Posted on 04/25/2024 12:55:09 PM PDT by Az Joe
Thursday’s argument in Trump v. United States was a disaster for Special Counsel Jack Smith, and for anyone who believes that the president of the United States should be subject to prosecution if they commit a crime.
Bkmk
Joe Biden droned a father and his 7 children in Afghanistan so that he could look good after that disgusting debacle that cost so many American lives..so gonna wait to see when Biden gets prosecuted for cold blooded murder and he did it on purpose it was no mistake
it appears that you are correct.
As always. See Tagline.
Naw, if Alito was just spewing the “party line”, he’d included another 50 billion for Ukraine in his arguments and tell the rest of us peons how the whole world will explode unless we capitulate.
Which isn't what Alito said. Moreover, Trump did not order the military to execute a coup, which is the hypothetical that Alito raised.
They have and easy out, actually. Rely on the already submitted case on J6 and further find that the government lacks standing to pursue this case because Jack Smith was not properly appointed and dismiss it also pointing out that pursuing political prosecutions is constitutionally forbidden. Then duck the whole mess.
Would the Grand Jury vote the same toward Trump if they were selected in Cheyenne?
Flynn advised him that he should do that and Trump inquired about it. Thankfully he was shot down.
Nooooooooooo.......
Like father, like son. George, the elder gave us David Souter. I can still hear the “Honorable” Senator Rudman vouch for Souter’s “conservative” credentials.
On a related note, qualified immunity needs to be ended.
“Chief Justice John Roberts”
has been compromised since Obama was in the White Hut.
Dreeben also said the protection is that no prosecutor would bring a case they knew they would lose because their reputation would take a hit (paraphrase).
-PJ
Exactly! That is why I posted the quote from the original article which is absolute garbage.
What’s wrong with Sauer’s voice?….It was painful to listen to
It would be good if the Court just threw the case out, but the problem is that the Court may feel that it can only rule on the Constitutional question and not on the facts of the case.
Bragg used a state law to bootstrap the expired misdemeanor book-keeping entries in Manhattan into a felony. Bragg withheld the bootstrapping crime from Trump until the second day of the trial, preventing Trump from preparing a defense against this second charge.
A lawyerly poster said that the language of the legal code in New York doesn't say that the bootstrapping crime has to be tried and convicted, it just has to be "in furtherance of another crime" in order to bootstrap the misdemeanor into a felony. The poster went on to say that Bragg still has to "prove" to the jury that the subsequent crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt.
He also argued that the text of the law didn't say that the second crime has to be in the same jurisdiction (i.e., a local DA can use a statewide crime in the jurisdiction of the Attorney General that the local DA cannot bring himself).
I've been arguing that if Bragg has to prove the second crime in order to prove the first crime, that's a de facto trial of the second crime. By making Trump put up a defense against the second crime, Trump is essentially on trial for both crimes. There was no grand jury indictment of the second crime, as the Attorney General's office declined to pursue it previously, and the Manhattan District Attorney does not have jurisdiction to bring the statewide crime to a Manhattan grand jury in the first place.
Therefore, I'm arguing that this whole case violates Trump's fifth amendment protection against secret charges by not having a grand jury indictment on the charge that Bragg used to bootstrap the expired misdemeanors into felonies, and withholding that charge from the defendant until after the trial began.
-PJ
Here is an interesting article from yesterday that discusses the logical fallacy that the Democrats have used to avoid discussing the proof of a stolen election -- by avoiding proving it wasn't stolen.
American Thinker: Why 2020 ‘Election Denialism’ Is Not Denialism at All
-PJ
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.