trump off the CO ballot

[President Bush]

Hadn't read before that Senator Grassley of Iowa was projected to act as President of the Senate when/if VP Pence stepped down from that role due to his conflict, being a candidate for election himself, and there being dispute about the electoral votes of some of the states, ie the fake electoral slates which formed the basis of the plot to overturn the election.

Had Grassley presided over the electoral count on January 6... things might have turned out a little differently.

But, yeah, no big deal. Just have to figure out a way to sell this all to the voters. lol

oh, and CC5 Kenneth Chesebro.

[Admin]

It doesn't offer him nearly as much protection as a lot of people seem to think.

If another ruling is needed to cement it in stone, I'm sure the supermajority of far-right filth on SCOTUS have his back.

[President Bush]

It doesn't offer him nearly as much protection as a lot of people seem to think.

If another ruling is needed to cement it in stone, I'm sure the supermajority of far-right filth on SCOTUS have his back.

Smith's brief was written specifically in response to SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity.

Revised case built on evidence that Smith says is admissible under the new rules of the SCOTUS immunity opinion ie using material/evidence not having to do with official presidential duties, so not shielded by immunity... shit Trump did as a candidate, not as the president. Asking the courts to direct that Trump stand trial for his private crimes as would any other person.

[Meadmaker]

It doesn't offer him nearly as much protection as a lot of people seem to think.

If another ruling is needed to cement it in stone, I'm sure the supermajority of far-right filth on SCOTUS have his back.

They really aren't as much "far right filth" as many would have you believe. (Exception: Thomas. He's filth. Alito is also in that neighborhood.) They don't rubber stamp Trump's or the far right's views.


Until I read the opinion, having only read the discussions of it in the media, I thought this was an extraordinary ruling that gives the President a free pass for a whole lot of things. In reality, it doesn't. Or at least, it doesn't appear that way to me. The opinion in Trump v. United States is very hard to understand, even by Supreme Court standards. However, the way I read it, there are a few things that cannot be considered criminal if the President does them. There are lots of things, including anything done in an official capacity as President, for which a former President might be immune from prosecution. Indeed he is presumed to be immune. However, what that means is just that in order to prosecute a former President, for things he did while President you have to show that fear of prosecution would not hinder a President in execution of his official duties.

One thing that struck me about the opinion was that it was widely reported as a legal victory for Trump. However, Trump was asking for the case to be thrown out on the grounds of immunity, and the Court pointedly did not do that. Indeed, they made it explicit that he could, in fact, be prosecuted, and laid out what the government would have to do in order to prosecute. Jack Smith's filing is his attempt to demonstrate that he has met the demands the Supreme Court laid down.

I think the judge will buy it. I'm not sure whether, or to what extent, the Supreme Court will by it when it is inevitably appealed.

Another thing that isn't being mentioned is that now that Smith has made the filing, the Trump legal team has to accept it, or challenge it. In order to challenge it, they have to say, "When I told Mike Pence to ignore the official votes, I was acting in my official capacity as President." It's a bad look.

However, things are too murky ahead for me to be confident in my predictions of the future. We're really in uncharted waters here.

[stanky]

We're a few big storms away from martial law, imho.

[arthwollipot]

We're a few big storms away from martial law, imho.

Only if Trump wins.

[President Bush]

It doesn't offer him nearly as much protection as a lot of people seem to think.

If another ruling is needed to cement it in stone, I'm sure the supermajority of far-right filth on SCOTUS have his back.

They really aren't as much "far right filth" as many would have you believe. (Exception: Thomas. He's filth. Alito is also in that neighborhood.) They don't rubber stamp Trump's or the far right's views.


Until I read the opinion, having only read the discussions of it in the media, I thought this was an extraordinary ruling that gives the President a free pass for a whole lot of things. In reality, it doesn't. Or at least, it doesn't appear that way to me. The opinion in Trump v. United States is very hard to understand, even by Supreme Court standards. However, the way I read it, there are a few things that cannot be considered criminal if the President does them. There are lots of things, including anything done in an official capacity as President, for which a former President might be immune from prosecution. Indeed he is presumed to be immune. However, what that means is just that in order to prosecute a former President, for things he did while President you have to show that fear of prosecution would not hinder a President in execution of his official duties.

One thing that struck me about the opinion was that it was widely reported as a legal victory for Trump. However, Trump was asking for the case to be thrown out on the grounds of immunity, and the Court pointedly did not do that. Indeed, they made it explicit that he could, in fact, be prosecuted, and laid out what the government would have to do in order to prosecute. Jack Smith's filing is his attempt to demonstrate that he has met the demands the Supreme Court laid down.

I think the judge will buy it. I'm not sure whether, or to what extent, the Supreme Court will by it when it is inevitably appealed.

Another thing that isn't being mentioned is that now that Smith has made the filing, the Trump legal team has to accept it, or challenge it. In order to challenge it, they have to say, "When I told Mike Pence to ignore the official votes, I was acting in my official capacity as President." It's a bad look.

Don't think Trump's lawyers want him to have to justify almost getting Pence killed on Jan 6.

The judge has allowed Trump's team this in terms of responding to Smith's filing...

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant’s [253] “Motion to Extend Page Limits and Time to Respond to Government’s Motion for Immunity Determinations and for Leave to File a Sur-Reply” is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court’s [233] Order is MODIFIED as follows: Defendant’s combined Response and Renewed Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity is due November 7, 2024 and may include up to 180 pages; the Government’s combined Reply and Opposition is due November 21, 2024; and Defendant may file a combined Reply and Sur-Reply by December 5, 2024. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/3/2024.

Again, Smith's new indictment was written to comply with SCOTUS’ rewritten Constitution regarding presidential immunity. The crimes the defendent Trump is accused of took place in the context of his being a office seeker ie a candidate, and not a office holder ie the president.

[stanky]

We're a few big storms away from martial law, imho.

Only if Trump wins.

It's charming that you still believe there's a difference in team a and b.
Both will tell us what we want to hear regarding the problems they really can't fix or even address.
Only a candidate as weak as Harris (or Biden) could make this a close election.
It's embarrassing that Trump is even in the running. And it speaks volumes abut the state of our republic.

(This didn't happen overnight or in a vacuum.)

[grayman]

Unfuckingbelievable!

Vietnam vet gives Trump a Purple Heart despite ex-president famously dodging service there

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/vi ... r-AA1rKsFy

[sparks]

Worthless sack of shit. Problem is, he's got so many guppies out there who'd happily follow him into hell.

Cognitive dissonance or just plain willful Dumbth. Hardly matters, the result is the same. What we've got here is half or perhaps more than half a nation of goddamned idiots who couldn't reason their way out of the proverbial wet paper bag.

It's fucking embarrassing.