[Lord Dave]

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.

Well, your position is simply ridiculous and one that clearly identifies who is truly the extremist.

Markjo is right.
Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?  Do you know what happens if SCOTUS rules in his favor?  He wins.  He wins EVERY SINGLE CASE!
The ban on colorado becomes illegal.
And he doesn't have to pay millions in legal fees to fight bogus court cases.  Jack Smith is immediately made pointless as he had no case.  And Biden loses the election for putting up a sham case from the start.

There is literally no upside for Trump to not want SCOTUS to decide it now.  The longer it takes, the more it works through the courts, the more crooked Joe can milk the American tax payers, the more money Trump has to use on lawyers instead of the campaign, and the undecided voters or the states that remove the choice.


Trump could have ended thall this crap before the primaries.  Instead he wants to drag it out in appeal after appeal until it goes to scotus anyway.  Because whoever loses the lower courts will apppeal.

So as you parrot Trump, remember just how much of a scumbag you are for waning Joe to keep winning and keep draining you, Trump, and America of money.

^More comic relief.

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason. 

[Action80]

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason.

What question?

You are blaming Trump for the decision of SCOTUS to publically bitch slap the top-notch federal prosecutor who wanted to circumvent due process?

[garygreen]

"the supreme court isn't a court and when they make rulings it violates due process" has got to be the absolute weirdest argument i've ever heard

[Action80]

"the supreme court isn't a court and when they make rulings it violates due process" has got to be the absolute weirdest argument i've ever heard

As the preeminent rocket surgeon at this fine site, why are you trying to claim you have heard this argument? No one would make that argument.

Pics, or it didn't happen.

[markjo]

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.

Well, your position is simply ridiculous and one that clearly identifies who is truly the extremist.

If wanting to keep a vindictive, egomaniacal, pathological liar out of the White House makes me an extremist, then sure, I'm an extremist.

[Action80]

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.

Well, your position is simply ridiculous and one that clearly identifies who is truly the extremist.

If wanting to keep a vindictive, egomaniacal, pathological liar out of the White House makes me an extremist, then sure, I'm an extremist.

So you do want Brandon out?

[Lord Dave]

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason.

What question?

You are blaming Trump for the decision of SCOTUS to publically bitch slap the top-notch federal prosecutor who wanted to circumvent due process?

The second line of the text you quoted.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?"

Honestly if you're gonna quote me, at least read it first.
Point is: Trump had the chance to make all his problems go away faster but he wants it to take longer.  I think its weird but if you want American bled dry by all these court cases, so be it.  Probably gonna keep Trump from winning too since he'll be too busy defending himself in court to campaign.

[Action80]

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason.

What question?

You are blaming Trump for the decision of SCOTUS to publically bitch slap the top-notch federal prosecutor who wanted to circumvent due process?

The second line of the text you quoted.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court? Why isn't Trump trying to help the prosecution in this case?"

Honestly if you're gonna quote me, at least read it first.
Point is: Trump had the chance to make all his problems go away faster but he wants it to take longer.  I think its weird but if you want American bled dry by all these court cases, so be it.  Probably gonna keep Trump from winning too since he'll be too busy defending himself in court to campaign.

I fixed your question to read for clarity.

Point is, Trump didn't bring charges.

He is not evading any of the court cases.

And he is not a fan of signing on to an attempt by a jackass prosecutor to skip the required steps to prosecute him.

The top-notch jackass prosecutor bringing this case is the one circumventing due process in his idiotic attempt to skip the required process, seeking validation outside of procedure, and that is what SCOTUS wrote:

"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied."

Notice that this bitch slap is a relatively swift and efficient bitch slap, similar to what anyone would do to any other insignificant insect.

[honk]

You have a very broad definition of "due process" if you think it includes deliberately delaying a decision from the SC that it almost certainly will be making at some point anyway. Trump has the right to a fair trial. I don't think that he has the right to run the clock out by delaying every step of the legal process until he's once more elected president and beyond the prosecution's power. That's not justice.

[Lord Dave]

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason.

What question?

You are blaming Trump for the decision of SCOTUS to publically bitch slap the top-notch federal prosecutor who wanted to circumvent due process?

The second line of the text you quoted.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court? Why isn't Trump trying to help the prosecution in this case?"

Honestly if you're gonna quote me, at least read it first.
Point is: Trump had the chance to make all his problems go away faster but he wants it to take longer.  I think its weird but if you want American bled dry by all these court cases, so be it.  Probably gonna keep Trump from winning too since he'll be too busy defending himself in court to campaign.

I fixed your question to read for clarity.

Point is, Trump didn't bring charges.

He is not evading any of the court cases.

And he is not a fan of signing on to an attempt by a jackass prosecutor to skip the required steps to prosecute him.

The top-notch jackass prosecutor bringing this case is the one circumventing due process in his idiotic attempt to skip the required process, seeking validation outside of procedure, and that is what SCOTUS wrote:

"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied."

Notice that this bitch slap is a relatively swift and efficient bitch slap, similar to what anyone would do to any other insignificant insect.

Why does it help the prosecution?  Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

[Action80]

You have a very broad definition of "due process" if you think it includes deliberately delaying a decision from the SC that it almost certainly will be making at some point anyway. Trump has the right to a fair trial. I don't think that he has the right to run the clock out by delaying every step of the legal process until he's once more elected president and beyond the prosecution's power. That's not justice.

You act as if Trump is in charge of deciding when these cases are going to be heard.

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

I have a definition of due process. It seems you have no definition for anything.

[Action80]

Why does it help the prosecution?

Are you under the impression the jackass top-notch prosecutor is interested in making arguments in front of a court that will harm the prosecution?
 

Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

I know the entirety of all these cases, regardless of reported outcomes, are simply another step toward solidifying the current mob rule in the country.

Nobody is going to win in the end.

[honk]

No, Trump isn't responsible for this specific decision, but he is responsible for delaying his trial in the hopes of being elected president before he can be convicted, and part of that strategy is his claiming presidential immunity. Wrangling over this subject is not "the required steps" or "the required process" for prosecuting Trump. It's an absurd idea to begin with. Of course the president shouldn't be immune to prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This is only a legal question because Trump demanded that it be, and he only demanded that it be, again, to help him try to run out the clock. Deliberately gaming the legal system is not due process, and trying to avoid such a tactic is not circumventing due process.

[Lord Dave]

Why does it help the prosecution?

Are you under the impression the jackass top-notch prosecutor is interested in making arguments in front of a court that will harm the prosecution?

Are you saying Trump's own lawyers will make arguments that will harm his own case?

Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

I know the entirety of all these cases, regardless of reported outcomes, are simply another step toward solidifying the current mob rule in the country.

Nobody is going to win in the end.

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

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.

[markjo]

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.

The second line of the text you quoted.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?"

I think that the reason that A80 won't answer this question is because deep down he knows that Trump won't be exonerated by any court.

[Action80]

No, Trump isn't responsible for this specific decision, but he is responsible for delaying his trial in the hopes of being elected president before he can be convicted, and part of that strategy is his claiming presidential immunity. Wrangling over this subject is not "the required steps" or "the required process" for prosecuting Trump. It's an absurd idea to begin with. Of course the president shouldn't be immune to prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This is only a legal question because Trump demanded that it be, and he only demanded that it be, again, to help him try to run out the clock. Deliberately gaming the legal system is not due process, and trying to avoid such a tactic is not circumventing due process.

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"?

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."

GTFO with your tears about "gaming," or start a thread in the lounge concerning casinos or something dealing with Vegas or Monte Carlo.

[Action80]

Why does it help the prosecution?

Are you under the impression the jackass top-notch prosecutor is interested in making arguments in front of a court that will harm the prosecution?

Are you saying Trump's own lawyers will make arguments that will harm his own case?

Where did I mention Trump's lawyers?

Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

I know the entirety of all these cases, regardless of reported outcomes, are simply another step toward solidifying the current mob rule in the country.

Nobody is going to win in the end.

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

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...

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

The second line of the text you quoted.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?"

I think that the reason that A80 won't answer this question is because deep down he knows that Trump won't be exonerated by any court.

And I think my earlier replies have effectively bitch slapped your thinking as well.

[markjo]

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.

[Lord Dave]

Why does it help the prosecution?

Are you under the impression the jackass top-notch prosecutor is interested in making arguments in front of a court that will harm the prosecution?

Are you saying Trump's own lawyers will make arguments that will harm his own case?

Where did I mention Trump's lawyers?

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

Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

I know the entirety of all these cases, regardless of reported outcomes, are simply another step toward solidifying the current mob rule in the country.

Nobody is going to win in the end.

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

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?

No, Trump isn't responsible for this specific decision, but he is responsible for delaying his trial in the hopes of being elected president before he can be convicted, and part of that strategy is his claiming presidential immunity. Wrangling over this subject is not "the required steps" or "the required process" for prosecuting Trump. It's an absurd idea to begin with. Of course the president shouldn't be immune to prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This is only a legal question because Trump demanded that it be, and he only demanded that it be, again, to help him try to run out the clock. Deliberately gaming the legal system is not due process, and trying to avoid such a tactic is not circumventing due process.

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"?

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."

GTFO with your tears about "gaming," or start a thread in the lounge concerning casinos or something dealing with Vegas or Monte Carlo.

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.