[Action80]

It so happens, he does not. Trump isn't the jackass bring stupid fucking arguments to the court.

Whether or not Trump has presidential immunity is not a "stupid fucking argument".  It's the heart of Trump's defense.

Tell that to SCOTUS.

Jack Smith already did and got "bitch slapped" for it.

I will qualify it further by labeling it a stupidly ill-timed and ill-placed argument which was treated accordingly by SCOTUS.

We all know that Trump's presidential immunity argument won't stand up in the lower courts and is headed to SCOTUS anyway, so Smith just wanted to save everyone some time.  So SCOTUS said no.  BFHD.  In the long run it probably hurts Trump more than Smith.

BTW.  Presidential immunity is not Jack Smith's argument; it's Trump's.  One that was rejected by Judge Chutkan and the Trump legal team is now appealing.  Smith was simply trying to expedite the appeal to SCOTUS because we all know that it's headed there anyway.

We, as in you and the vermin found in your pocket.

In the long run, the top-notch jackass will probably be found to have no legal standing to prosecute the case to begin with.

"Expedite." LOL.

[Action80]

Well I assume someone's gonna argue in Trump's defence.  Right?

I don't give a shit about your assumptions.

So you agree that Trump knows he'll lose and must delay until he can be president again.

No.

Also:
Wouldn't mob rule be a large group of people who agree on the same thing and works to enact that into law?  Sounds like democracy to me.

Yeah, mobs are democracy to you.

SMDH...
[/quote]
And whats your version?  A bunch of people breaking into the capitol building because their favorite person lost?[/quote]
So you do understand what a mob is and you don't like it.

Wait... Do.. do you think Jack Smith was asking SCOTUS to rule on the case without an actual argument/trial being done?  Because thats what you seem to imply above.

That is exactly what happened.

[honk]

Are you stating for the record the responsible persons found at all levels in the judicial halls of the US are incapable of preventing litigants from "gaming the legal system"?

Incapable, no, but certainly unwilling. Obviously, there's no way any of us can know for certain the SC's motivations for declining to rule on this issue, but I'd be willing to bet that they're simply trying to avoid being involved in the whole ordeal, or at least put off their eventual involvement for as long as they can. They've got Trump supporters on one side and Trump opponents on the other, and either of the two decisions they could potentially make will be enormously controversial and are guaranteed to make a lot of people very angry with them.

Last I checked, when you are charged, you are required to provide a plea and then the judgment comes down, not seeking any portion of a decision regarding material fact prior, such as what the jackass top-notch prosecutor was seeking when he tried to "game the legal system."

The question of whether or not the president is immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office is not a "material fact" of the case; it's a pointless diversion and a waste of time. The answer is no. We already know that the answer is no. I'm not even asking if you agree with me on this, because I already know that you do. Virtually everyone in the world would agree that of course the president is not and should not be above the law. What Trump's trials are about - like what any trial is about - are the facts of the specific cases. What he's alleged to have done, what his side of the story is, and so on. Not some nonsense about "gee, maybe we just shouldn't be able to prosecute the president at all, that sounds like a good idea."

[Action80]

"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied." Seems obvious to me.

If it wasn't a material fact, then the jackass top-notch federal prosecutor would not have treated it such. So, it must be material.

I'll give you time to untwist the underwear.

[honk]

"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied." Seems obvious to me.

I don't know what it is that seems obvious to you, and I don't know what new information you emphasizing the words "before judgment" is supposed to give me.

If it wasn't a material fact, then the jackass top-notch federal prosecutor would not have treated it such. So, it must be material.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual facts of the case in which Trump answers for the crimes that he has been charged with, not about a far-fetched claim of absolute immunity from prosecution as a general thing. There's a world of difference between Trump saying "I'm not guilty of these charges because what actually happened was..." and Trump saying "You don't have the right to prosecute me to begin with." The former is related to the facts of the case, and Trump is absolutely entitled to make any such argument in his own way and in his own time. The latter is not related to the facts of the case. It's just Trump saying that he's above the law, and it's obviously a delay tactic rather than a sincere argument.

[Lord Dave]

Well I assume someone's gonna argue in Trump's defence.  Right?

I don't give a shit about your assumptions.

So you agree that Trump knows he'll lose and must delay until he can be president again.

No.

So you think the supreme court will agree with Trump?

Also:
Wouldn't mob rule be a large group of people who agree on the same thing and works to enact that into law?  Sounds like democracy to me.

Yeah, mobs are democracy to you.

SMDH...

And whats your version?  A bunch of people breaking into the capitol building because their favorite person lost?[/quote]
So you do understand what a mob is and you don't like it.
[/Quote]
Fair.  So, when did Democrats storm the capitol to stop an election?  Or impart their rule?

Wait... Do.. do you think Jack Smith was asking SCOTUS to rule on the case without an actual argument/trial being done?  Because thats what you seem to imply above.

That is exactly what happened.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna127720

There was already a decision.  He's appealing it.  Jack Smith just wanted the appeals court to be the supreme court instead of the DC Curcuit of appeals.

They denied it.  Which means it'll be months if not longer before anyone knows for certain if presidents are immune to prosecution.

[Action80]

"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied." Seems obvious to me.

I don't know what it is that seems obvious to you, and I don't know what new information you emphasizing the words "before judgment" is supposed to give me.

In this case, it becomes obvious issues with reading comprehension are interfering with your ability to recognize obvious things.

If it wasn't a material fact, then the jackass top-notch federal prosecutor would not have treated it such. So, it must be material.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual facts of the case in which Trump answers for the crimes that he has been charged with, not about a far-fetched claim of absolute immunity from prosecution as a general thing. There's a world of difference between Trump saying "I'm not guilty of these charges because what actually happened was..." and Trump saying "You don't have the right to prosecute me to begin with." The former is related to the facts of the case, and Trump is absolutely entitled to make any such argument in his own way and in his own time. The latter is not related to the facts of the case. It's just Trump saying that he's above the law, and it's obviously a delay tactic rather than a sincere argument.

Well, again...back to reading comprehension.

[Action80]

So you think the supreme court will agree with Trump?

I don't care.

Fair.  So, when did Democrats storm the capitol to stop an election?  Or impart their rule?

Was an election ever stopped?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna127720

There was already a decision.  He's appealing it.  Jack Smith just wanted the appeals court to be the supreme court instead of the DC Curcuit of appeals.

They denied it.  Which means it'll be months if not longer before anyone knows for certain if presidents are immune to prosecution.

So?

[Lord Dave]

So you think the supreme court will agree with Trump?

I don't care.

Surprising as that question/ruling is the basis for Trump's defence and his motion to dismiss the case.  You probably should care because it means, right now, Trump is not immune from prosecution for crimes comitted while in office.

Fair.  So, when did Democrats storm the capitol to stop an election?  Or impart their rule?

Was an election ever stopped?

Yes.  January 6, 2021

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna12772

There was already a decision.  He's appealing it.  Jack Smith just wanted the appeals court to be the supreme court instead of the DC Curcuit of appeals.

They denied it.  Which means it'll be months if not longer before anyone knows for certain if presidents are immune to prosecution.

So?

So, Trump is gonna be paying alot of campaign money to lawyers for longer than he has to.  His camapign will be negatively affected by the publicity.

The longer it drags out, the more it hurts him. You don't want that.... Do you?

[markjo]

In the long run, the top-notch jackass will probably be found to have no legal standing to prosecute the case to begin with.

Why would you say something silly like that?  Why wouldn't he have any legal standing?  It's not as if former presidents are immune from crimes commuted while in office. 

Wait... Do.. do you think Jack Smith was asking SCOTUS to rule on the case without an actual argument/trial being done?  Because thats what you seem to imply above.

That is exactly what happened.

No.  Jack Smith asked SCOTUS to hear oral arguments and then rule on the appeal on Trump's motion to dismiss so that the actual trial can proceed.

[Action80]

Surprising as that question/ruling is the basis for Trump's defence and his motion to dismiss the case.  You probably should care because it means, right now, Trump is not immune from prosecution for crimes comitted while in office.

Are you going to offer a reason, something that Jack Smith has not done?

Yes.  January 6, 2021

Wow, this is actually breaking news. [/sarcasm] No election was stopped. Quit lying.

So, Trump is gonna be paying alot of campaign money to lawyers for longer than he has to.  His camapign will be negatively affected by the publicity.

The longer it drags out, the more it hurts him. You don't want that.... Do you?

Ah yes, Trump is really suffering...[/sarcasm] Two more weeks.

[Action80]

In the long run, the top-notch jackass will probably be found to have no legal standing to prosecute the case to begin with.

Why would you say something silly like that?  Why wouldn't he have any legal standing?  It's not as if former presidents are immune from crimes commuted while in office.

It has nothing to do with "former presidents," as to whether Jack Smith has legal standing to prosecute. It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

No.  Jack Smith asked SCOTUS to hear oral arguments and then rule on the appeal on Trump's motion to dismiss so that the actual trial can proceed.Never mind what the SCOTUS ruling was, it is what I say it is.

FTFY. NNTM.

[Lord Dave]

Surprising as that question/ruling is the basis for Trump's defence and his motion to dismiss the case.  You probably should care because it means, right now, Trump is not immune from prosecution for crimes comitted while in office.

Are you going to offer a reason, something that Jack Smith has not done?

Done that several times already.  Once in the post you quoted below.  Not my fault you're not able to understand it.

Yes.  January 6, 2021

Wow, this is actually breaking news. [/sarcasm] No election was stopped. Quit lying.

Yes it was.  The election process was completely halted as senators had to run for their lives.  Makes tallying electors difficult.

So, Trump is gonna be paying alot of campaign money to lawyers for longer than he has to.  His camapign will be negatively affected by the publicity.

The longer it drags out, the more it hurts him. You don't want that.... Do you?

Ah yes, Trump is really suffering...[/sarcasm] Two more weeks.

Two more weeks til what?  The appeals court hears the argument? Or the march 4 trial thats on hold? I assume the former since I'd hope you knew how to count dates but I probably shouldn't assume...

[Dr Van Nostrand]

We have Trump, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon on tape planning the stolen election lie. Fox News knowingly promoted the lie on TV with no proof and got sued for billions. The fake electors that Trump tricked into presenting fake paperwork are now facing federal charges so they are turning on him.
Guilanni will be bankrupted for the malicious lies he spread because he had no proof just like dumb Kraken bitch. Kari Lake is being sued for her lies and like Trump, Rudy and dumb Kraken bitch, she has no proof of anything. They are lying about everything, there is no 'Kraken", it isn't real.

The Republican party is corrupted on an institutional level and is being supported by the Russians in exchange for the Republicans supporting Russia's expansion in Europe.

The GOP debates were all about 'wokeism' and liberals grooming our children to be transvestites. They aren't worried about the children gunned down in streets which are being flooded with cheap, accessible guns. They don't care about the devastating cost of hospitals and health care. Their messaging is targeting the mentally vulnerable with lies, conspiracy and bullshit .

It boggles the mind that there are still idiots that listen and believe the ludicrous crap that these people spew. Really, at this point how stupid do have to be to defend any aspect of Trump's existence.

In the long run, the top-notch jackass will probably be found to have no legal standing to prosecute the case to begin with.

Oh...

[markjo]

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

[Action80]

Done that several times already.  Once in the post you quoted below.  Not my fault you're not able to understand it.

Oh yes, Trump has committed a crime. When was he found guilty of anything related to the case Smith brought?

Yes it was.  The election process was completely halted as senators had to run for their lives.  Makes tallying electors difficult.

Ah yes, Trump did this. [/sarcasm]

Two more weeks til what?  The appeals court hears the argument? Or the march 4 trial thats on hold? I assume the former since I'd hope you knew how to count dates but I probably shouldn't assume...

Two more weeks until two more weeks until two more weeks....You guys are gonna get him now...LMMFAO!

[Action80]

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.

[Lord Dave]

Done that several times already.  Once in the post you quoted below.  Not my fault you're not able to understand it.

Oh yes, Trump has committed a crime. When was he found guilty of anything related to the case Smith brought?

Oh nothing yet.  But you know that.  Trump is asking for the case to be dismissed on the grounds of immunity.  Jack Smith isn't even asking for a ruling of guilty/not guilty, just answering a legal question: does the president have absolute immunity for actions while in office?

Trump says yes.  Jack Smith and the DC court says no.

Yes it was.  The election process was completely halted as senators had to run for their lives.  Makes tallying electors difficult.

Ah yes, Trump did this. [/sarcasm]

Yep, he did.  Just because pawns do the dirty work, doesn't mean he isn't reaponsible.

Two more weeks til what?  The appeals court hears the argument? Or the march 4 trial thats on hold? I assume the former since I'd hope you knew how to count dates but I probably shouldn't assume...

Two more weeks until two more weeks until two more weeks....You guys are gonna get him now...LMMFAO!

What?!  No!  I wish it was.  But no, the court cases will take months to work through. We'll be lucky if even one is finished by election day.

[Tom Bishop]

Presidents are treated by law enforcement to have criminal immunity until a court rules otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States

The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. However, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the court ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct. Some scholars have suggested an immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as well, a view which has become the practice of the Department of Justice under a pair of memoranda (1973 and 2000) from the Office of Legal Counsel. Presidents Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump were criminally investigated while in office, but none was prosecuted while in office. No court has ever ruled on the matter of criminal immunity.[4]

[Lord Dave]

Presidents are treated by law enforcement to have criminal immunity until a court rules otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States

The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. However, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the court ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct. Some scholars have suggested an immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as well, a view which has become the practice of the Department of Justice under a pair of memoranda (1973 and 2000) from the Office of Legal Counsel. Presidents Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump were criminally investigated while in office, but none was prosecuted while in office. No court has ever ruled on the matter of criminal immunity.[4]

So if Biden rigged the election, he is immune from prosecution since he did it while in office?